origin_plot_3d_vector

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits but only states a simple action. It does not disclose side effects like whether a new graph is created or modified, what happens to existing plots, any required permissions, or the nature of the output. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence with no waste, but it is too terse for the complexity of a 5-parameter tool. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it under-specified rather than 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and many similar siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not reference the output schema (which exists) or explain return values, default behaviors, or common use cases, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 5 parameters. It does not explain 'path' (the required argument) or 'selected_cols', 'graph_name', etc. The agent has no hint about expected formats, defaults, or how parameters affect the plot.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource '3D vector plot from table data', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling 3D plot tools (e.g., origin_plot_3d_scatter, origin_plot_3d_surface), leaving the agent to guess what 'vector' implies.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like origin_plot_3d_scatter or origin_plot_vector_xyam. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, data requirements, or exclusions, forcing the agent to rely on trial and error.

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