List Charts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the list scope and usage sequence, providing no additional details about pagination, return format, or special behaviors.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a usage hint. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to parse quickly.

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 list operation with good annotations and a schema that covers most parameters, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, so it is sufficiently complete.

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 75%, with view_id, page_size, and project_key already described in the schema; only page_num lacks an explicit description. The tool's description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, leaving the baseline at 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List charts under a view'), clearly indicating the operation and scope. It distinguishes from sibling chart_get (get one chart) and view_search/view_get by focusing on listing charts under a resolved view.

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 states when to use the tool ('after resolving a view_id through view_search or direct user input'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or directly contrast with chart_get, so it falls short of a full 5.

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