plot_qc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool audits and reports rather than modifies, and it enumerates the checks performed. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only in explicit terms, nor does it disclose the effect of the include_old parameter on 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 opening sentence establishes the purpose, and the bullet list presents the report contents with no filler or repetition. Every line 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?

The output schema covers return-value shape, so the description does not need to explain that. The main gaps are the undocumented include_old parameter and the lack of context about what 'the plot' refers to or whether an active plot must be set first.

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%, and the description does not mention the include_old parameter at all. The agent receives no explanation of what 'old' refers to or when the parameter should be used, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare field name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('the plot'), and enumerates the exact QC issue categories it reports. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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 description gives no guidance on when to run this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having an active plot or file selected. It implies a plot-audit use case but leaves all usage context to inference.

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