plot_distribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the side effect of saving a PNG to outputs/, conditional behavior for numeric vs categorical columns, and the return of the saved file path. It could add overwrite behavior or failure modes, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavior, and return value. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main functionality, side effects, and return value well. However, the lack of explanation for the 'bins' parameter and the ambiguity around the 'filename' parameter slightly reduce completeness. Overall, it is adequate for typical use cases.

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 implicitly defines 'column' (the target column) but does not mention 'bins' at all, and 'filename' is only implied via 'save it as a PNG in outputs/'. The description fails to explain the meaning of two of three parameters, which is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('distribution chart for a column'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on single-column distribution visualization. It also states the output (PNG in outputs/) and the return value (file path), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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 clearly implies usage: plotting a column's distribution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus siblings like profile_dataset. The context is clear enough to differentiate, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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