origin_plot_polar_xr_ytheta

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only says 'Create', implying a new plot. It does not state whether it adds to an existing graph, overrides, or requires any specific table structure. Insufficient behavioral detail.

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, concise sentence starting with the verb 'Create'. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though lacks structural elements for multiple points.

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 (polar plot with 5 parameters and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits return values, behavior, and parameter details, leaving an agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds minimal meaning: 'from table data' hints at using 'path' but does not explain other critical parameters like 'selected_cols', 'graph_name', etc. Fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 creates a polar X(R) Y(Theta) plot from table data, identifying the specific plot type. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tool 'origin_plot_polar', which likely creates a different polar plot format.

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?

Implied usage is evident from the description, but there is no guidance on when to choose this polar variant over alternatives or prerequisites. The description lacks explicit context for use.

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