Spss Chart Boxplot

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 discloses that output is a file in PNG/TIFF via GGRAPH + OMS, but not where the file is written, whether an active dataset/file must already be loaded, what happens if data_file is omitted, or what the tool returns. For a 10-parameter export tool with no annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, with zero filler. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with 0% schema coverage across 10 parameters and no annotations, an agent still lacks guidance on most inputs (resolution, dimensions, format, source data file, labels). The description is materially incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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% and there are 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only characterizes 2 of them (variable as continuous, category as optional grouping); dpi, title, x_label, y_label, width_px, height_px, image_format, and data_file are left entirely undocumented. The two it does cover add real meaning (continuous vs categorical role), but coverage is far too thin.

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 (Export), a specific resource (box-and-whisker plot), and the output formats (PNG/TIFF), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like spss_chart_histogram or spss_chart_scatter. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the chart type alone is enough to differentiate.

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 second sentence gives input preconditions (a continuous variable, optionally a categorical grouping variable), which is useful usage context, but it never says when to choose a boxplot over alternatives or what data requirements/prerequisites exist. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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