origin_view_graph

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

Describes rendering to temp PNG, returning as image content block with text summary, and deleting temp file. Mentions max_width bounds token cost. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden well. Could explicitly state read-only behavior, but overall transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose. Student if additional details needed, but highly concise.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format (image + text summary). Covers parameters, behavior, and distinction from sibling. Minor missing details about summary content but adequate for selection.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaningful context: max_width limits pixel width for token cost, graph_name usage (active graph or new page). Exceeds baseline.

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?

Description clearly states 'Render an Origin graph and return it as an image the model can see.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling origin_export_graph by noting no file is left behind.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to visually verify a plot and iterate on it.' Contrasts with export_graph to guide selection. Mentions vision-capable client requirement. Doesn't list all alternatives, but provides clear context.

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