plot_box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: the plot includes five-number summary and IQR outlier count, uses the same criterion as outlier_detect, and supports two inline_data shapes. However, it does not describe the return value or error behavior, which is a notable gap given there is no output schema.

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 organized into a purpose line, a core behavior paragraph, and an inline-data note. It front-loads the main function and avoids fluff, though the inline-data section is somewhat verbose with the external SPEC reference.

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 tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers input modes and plot contents but omits the return format, error handling, and parameter-level details such as column's format. Reliance on an external SPEC for limits reduces self-contained completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains inline_data in detail (records array or header/rows object) and its exclusivity with file_path, but it does not explicitly define the column parameter or file_path format, leaving some parameter semantics to inference.

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 plots a single-column box plot with five-number summary and IQR outlier count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from outlier_detect by noting the single-column scope and absence of an outlier export table, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: inline_data and file_path are mutually exclusive, and it directs agents to Tool 5 for outlier localization, naming the alternative and the condition. The single-column scope also implies when not to use this tool.

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