Spss Chart Errorbar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output type (PNG/TIFF file), the statistical construction (mean with CI whiskers), and the generation path (GGRAPH + OMS), but says nothing about where the file is written, whether an active dataset or data_file is required, or how missing data is handled.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the outcome ('publication-ready error bar chart') with no filler. The trailing 'via GGRAPH + OMS' is implementation detail of marginal value to an agent choosing a tool, but it is not wasteful.

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 need not be explained, but for an 11-parameter chart tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the single sentence is too thin to be complete. The relationship to spss_chart_bar_error and the file-output behavior are the missing pieces.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only implicitly touches 'ci' (confidence interval) and the image_format enum (PNG/TIFF) via 'PNG/TIFF'; dpi, width_px, height_px, title, x_label, y_label, and data_file are left entirely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Export a publication-ready error bar chart') and specifies the statistical content (mean with confidence-interval whiskers per category). However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling spss_chart_bar_error, leaving the agent to guess which of the two to invoke.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The existence of a confusingly similar sibling (spss_chart_bar_error) makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap.

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