origin_plot_smith

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies mutation (creating a chart) but does not state whether it modifies existing graphs, requires specific data formats, or has side effects. The behavior of the tool beyond creation is opaque.

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 short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is too brief to be fully informative. Every word earns its place, but more content would improve usability.

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 (5 parameters, specific plot type) and the absence of schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not cover how to select columns, name the graph, or export. Even if an output schema exists, the input details are missing.

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%, meaning the parameters have no descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of the five parameters (path, selected_cols, graph_name, title, export_path). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving agents to guess parameter roles.

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 Smith chart from table data, specifying the output type and data source. It distinguishes from sibling plot tools by the chart type. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes 'table data' or how the Smith chart is configured.

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 other plot tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when it would be inappropriate to use.

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