plot_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the return is a PNG image (useful, since there is no output schema), but says nothing about permissions, cost, whether the run must exist, how group_by/loads interact, or pagination/error behavior for an operation with seven parameters.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, output format, and the option list — no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally efficient.

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?

For a seven-parameter plotting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the view options. It omits how required run_id/year behave, when group_by=load needs the loads array, and what start_date does beyond the schema's own hints, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 43%, so the description partially compensates by mapping view values to human-readable labels (duration -> "load-duration curve", daily_mean -> "daily means"). But it says nothing about run_id, year, group_by, scenario, or how the required year interacts with optional start_date for week/day plots.

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?

States a specific verb ("Plot") and resource ("a run") and immediately names the output format (PNG), which distinguishes it from the sibling read/list tools. It also enumerates the available views. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The only implied usage is that run_id and year are required, which the schema already enforces. An agent must infer which view to pick and when.

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