plot_run_metric

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that the result is returned as a base-64-encoded PNG rather than a file path or rendered image. However, with no annotations provided, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior; for a plotting tool, the disclosed output behavior is the most important part.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the action and output format are front-loaded. Every word earns its place given the minimal scope of the tool.

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 output is specified, but for a 4-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition lacks parameter semantics and usage context. An agent would have to infer the meaning of entity/project/run and which metrics are valid, so this is not complete enough on its own.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level explanation. 'Requested metrics' loosely maps to metric_names, but entity, project_name, and run_id are left entirely to inference from their names, which may be ambiguous in the W&B context.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Plot'), the target ('requested metrics'), and the output format ('base-64-encoded PNG'). The verb/resource pair is distinct from the sibling get/list tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_project_metrics or get_run_details. The intended context is only weakly implied by the tool name and parameters, not stated.

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