export_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating and returning an image, implying a read-only operation that generates output, but lacks details on permissions, file access requirements, error handling, or performance aspects like size limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured list of args and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more, though it does state 'Chart as image.' Overall, it's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool of this nature.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'x_column: Column to use for x-axis'), clarifies that 'sheet_name' is for Excel files, and lists valid 'chart_type' options. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover defaults or null handling explicitly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a chart from Excel data and return as an image.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('chart from Excel data'), and output format ('image'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_excel' or 'data_summary', which might also involve charting or visualization.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, such as using 'analyze_excel' for statistical insights or 'read_excel' for raw data extraction. Without this, users must infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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