Spss Chart Qqplot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying mechanism (PPLOT via the OMS chart pipeline) and that output is publication-ready, but omits where the exported file is written, how it is returned, whether an active dataset or data_file is required, and any permission/latency characteristics. For an export tool this leaves key operational behavior undisclosed.

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, densely informative sentence with the action and artifact front-loaded; 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 7-parameter export tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description is too thin — it omits parameter behaviors, dataset requirements, and where artifacts land. An agent would have to guess how to configure and consume the call.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'variable' (must be continuous) and image format (PNG/TIFF); dpi, width_px, height_px, title, and data_file are entirely undocumented anywhere, leaving more than half the parameters without semantics.

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') and a specific resource ('normal Q-Q plot of a continuous variable'), with output formats (PNG/TIFF) named inline. This is plainly distinguishable from the sibling chart tools (histogram, scatter, boxplot, etc.) without opening any schema.

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 never says when to prefer this Q-Q plot over alternatives such as spss_normality_outliers, spss_chart_histogram_density, or spss_read_data plus external plotting. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance; the usage context is only inferable from the name.

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