origin_plot_heatmap

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only describes the high-level action. It does not mention what happens with malformed data, whether a new graph is created, or any side effects. The description is too vague to inform an agent about the tool's 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 description is a single sentence, making it very concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though additional detail would be beneficial given the complexity of the tool.

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 21 parameters and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It does not cover the output, error handling, or the purpose of optional parameters. The description fails to provide a complete picture for an AI agent 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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. However, it only implies the meaning of x_col, y_col, z_col via 'XYZ table data' and provides no insight into the other 17 parameters (e.g., book_name, template, export_path). This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Import XYZ table data and create a heatmap graph,' which clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. It implies use of three columns (X, Y, Z) matching the required parameters. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'origin_plot_matrix_heatmap,' which likely creates a heatmap from a matrix rather than XYZ data, so differentiation is lacking.

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_matrix_heatmap' or other 2D plot tools. There are no hints about prerequisites, data format requirements, or when not to use it.

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