plot_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a frozen snapshot (non-live), produces a standalone self-contained file, and returns a path. It doesn't state whether existing files get overwritten or cleanup behavior, but given the tool generates a new output artifact this is reasonable coverage without annotation support.

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 compact, with a clear first sentence stating the primary function and a second sentence providing purpose/context in exactly two short paragraphs. Every sentence earns its place — no filler or redundancy.

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 100% schema coverage on 5 parameters, an output schema indicating return structure, and the description explains the output format (HTML file path), the standalone nature, and disambiguates it from start_monitor. For a rendering/plot tool this is complete coverage with no apparent gaps.

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 100%, so all 5 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal context by framing the output as a 'frozen snapshot' but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the documentation load fully.

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 renders the recent signal as a standalone HTML file and returns its path. It uses a specific verb (render) plus resource (signal) plus output format (HTML file), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like start_monitor and plot_spectrum.

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?

Explicitly differentiates from start_monitor ('unlike start_monitor') and gives concrete use cases: 'keep a record, attach to a note, or share.' It also notes the file inlines everything and needs no internet, enabling use in offline/standalone contexts. This is strong when-to-use guidance with an explicit alternative named.

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