create_terminal_chart

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: ANSI output with automatic fallback to monochrome. However, it is a single clause that omits rendering requirements and side effects, and it sits uneasily with the schema default use_color=false, which implies monochrome output by default despite the ANSI-first framing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and ends with a useful technical qualifier (ANSI/fallback). It has zero filler and every word earns its place, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool of this complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex tool — 12 parameters, overlapping chart-type siblings, no output schema, no annotations, and only 33% schema coverage — yet the description is a single clause. An agent lacks the context needed to invoke it correctly, particularly around the theme system, raw_output behavior, and how it differs from the dedicated chart tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds nothing about parameters, while schema coverage is only 33% — theme, title, width, height, x_label, y_label, use_color, and force_mono are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The few schema descriptions that exist ('Серии данных', 'Тип терминального графика') are terse, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete verb and resource — 'Рисует график для консоли' (draws a chart for the console) — and adds a specific rendering trait (ANSI with auto-fallback to monochrome). However, it does not distinguish this generic tool from its siblings create_line_chart, create_bar_chart, create_area_chart, and create_scatter_chart, despite the type parameter overlapping directly with those tools, so an agent cannot tell which to select.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specific chart-type siblings (create_line_chart, create_bar_chart, create_scatter_chart, create_area_chart) or the dashboard tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are mentioned, so the agent must infer the tool is a generic type-dispatching chart renderer from the schema alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.