origin_plot_column

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the tool imports and creates a graph, but does not explain whether it modifies existing graphs, requires permissions, or handles errors. Key behavioral details like graph naming, overwrite behavior, and response format are omitted.

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 two sentences, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It lacks structure and does not front-load critical information such as required parameters or behavioral caveats. While concise, it is under-specified.

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 (21 parameters, no schema coverage, no annotations, and many siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values despite having an output schema, and it ignores common usage patterns or error conditions. The agent is left with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 21 parameters. It does not explain parameters like path, x_col, y_cols, or any data import options. The agent must rely solely on parameter titles and types, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 states the tool imports table data and creates a column/bar-style graph, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling plotting tools (e.g., origin_plot_line, origin_plot_scatter), relying on the mention of 'column/bar-style' for differentiation, which is only partially effective.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. Without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, the agent cannot make informed selection decisions among the many plotting siblings.

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