generate_scatter_plot

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does reveal the return format (JSON with chart_path and chart_data) and implies file output via the 'filename' parameter default behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies any data, requires specific data types beyond 'numeric,' or has side effects like overwriting files. This is a moderate disclosure level but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence for purpose and usage, followed by a compact parameter list and a returns line. It is concise without unnecessary detail, and the most important information (purpose and trigger) is front-loaded. A minor improvement could be trimming the parameter documentation if it were already in the schema, but it is not, so the structure is appropriate.

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?

The description covers the core elements: purpose, usage trigger, all parameters, and the return format. Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, this is largely sufficient. The only gaps are explicit error handling or exception cases, which are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, but the tool description includes a detailed Args section that explains each parameter's purpose (dataset, x_column, y_column, title, color_by, filename). This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 generates a scatter plot comparing two numeric columns, which explicitly differentiates it from sibling chart tools like bar, line, pie, and histogram charts. The verb-resource pairing is precise and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 a specific trigger condition: 'Best used when get_summary_statistics reveals a notable correlation between two columns worth visualising.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative chart types, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score by not excluding other scenarios.

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