origin_plot_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the tool imports and plots, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the workspace), required permissions, error conditions, or what happens with missing data. For a 20-parameter tool, significant behavioral gaps exist.

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 very concise at 8 words, but it is too terse for the complexity. While frontloading the core action, it omits essential details. Conciseness without completeness is insufficient; the description needs to be longer to convey necessary information.

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's complexity (20 parameters, heavy data import aspect, and lack of annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the output schema provides, how to use the import parameters, or typical workflow. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning to any parameter. The schema only provides titles (e.g., 'Path', 'X Col', 'Y Cols') with no explanations. The agent gets no help understanding how to specify columns, configure import options (delimiter, encoding), or set plot aesthetics.

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 tool's action: 'Import table data and create a box plot.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create other plot types (e.g., origin_plot_line, origin_plot_scatter). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention scenarios where box plots are appropriate or when to prefer other plot types. No context about data format or required parameters beyond the implicit 'path.'

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