add_riemann

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says what is drawn and how dx affects fineness, but it omits whether the plot or scene is mutated, what happens to existing objects, required plot targeting, and any side effects or response behavior.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and has no wasted words. The parenthetical is dense, and the missing action verb keeps it from being fully self-contained, but it remains appropriately concise.

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 an 8-parameter drawing tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not establish required plot_id targeting, optional scene/project scoping, function selection, or x-range/color effects; the output schema covers returns but input guidance remains incomplete.

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 8 parameters. The description explains only dx ("smaller dx = finer") and leaves plot_id, x_min, x_max, color, function_index, scene_id, and project_id 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?

The description identifies the resource as Riemann rectangles under a plotted function and explains that dx controls fineness, so the agent can tell this draws an approximation visualization. It stops short of an explicit action verb and does not distinguish this from siblings such as add_area or add_equation.

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?

It provides an implied use case (coarse-to-fine convergence) and explains the effect of dx, but it does not say when to choose this over add_area, add_equation, or other drawing tools, nor does it list prerequisites or exclusions.

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