plot_sine_wave

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions saving a PNG to output_dir but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing files, permission requirements, or whether any temporary files are created. However, for a simple plotting tool, this is minimally acceptable.

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 brief sentences plus a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value: the first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage context, and the Args section clarifies parameters. No wasted words.

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 tool has an output schema, so the description need not cover return values. It adequately describes the main behavior and parameters. Minor omission: it doesn't mention that the sine wave amplitude or frequency might be hardcoded, but for a simple tool this is acceptable.

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%, but the description includes an Args section that adds meaningful context: 'Directory where the PNG should be written' for output_dir and 'Must be at least 2' for num_points. This goes beyond the schema's default value and title.

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 'Plot a sine wave and save it as a PNG', specifying the verb, resource, and output format. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'generate_random_points' which likely generates random points instead of a deterministic sine wave.

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 states when to use: 'when a workflow needs a simple generated plot artifact for downstream inspection or reporting'. While it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for typical scenarios.

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