statistica_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior (graph is built, export is optional, properties are set as dialog options before building), but says nothing about process lifecycle, permissions, whether an existing graph window is replaced, or what is returned after the build completes.

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 first sentence front-loads the core action and the export side effect; the following clauses pack parameter guidance without filler. It is slightly list-heavy but every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 7-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main calling mechanics well but omits what the call returns (a graph object? a path?), whether STATISTICA must be running, and how failures behave. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 71% with 7 parameters including a nested object. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the 'x | y' module variable syntax, the enumeration of common module IDs (11003, 11012, 11002, etc.), and concrete property keys (GraphType, FitType, ShowRawDataPoints). Only path and sheet remain undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Build a STATISTICA graph') plus the optional export side effect, so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings that also emit graphics (statistica_screenshot) or from run_analysis, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 module list and 'x | y' variable syntax imply when this tool is appropriate, and 'optionally export it to an image file' hints at the out parameter's role. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over statistica_screenshot, run_analysis, or statistica_dialog, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether STATISTICA must be open).

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