Get Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the workflow hint ('after resolving chart_id from chart_list') which is helpful context, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with a practical workflow tip. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one required parameter, the description is adequately complete. It provides the key workflow step and relies on strong annotations. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the simplicity of the operation and the sibling chart_list reference.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: chart_id is described as 'Chart ID' and project_key as 'Optional project key for the chart context.' The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get chart details by chart ID' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling chart_list tool (list vs. details). It also provides a workflow hint ('Use this after resolving chart_id from chart_list') that reinforces its specific role.

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?

The description explicitly advises to use this tool after resolving chart_id from chart_list, offering clear sequencing context. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the workflow hint is sufficient for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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