Boxplot / Violin

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint as safe. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: stats are computed automatically, and the difference between boxplot and violin rendering. This contextualizes how the tool operates without contradicting annotations.

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 short sentences deliver the essential information without redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds value. No extraneous details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity, rich schema, and no output schema, the description is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly. It covers what the chart shows, data format, and the key style option. No important behavioral or usage aspects are omitted.

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?

With 88% schema coverage, the schema already describes parameters well. The description adds meaning by specifying data format ('raw number arrays per category', 'nested arrays') and clarifying that stats are computed automatically, which is not explicit in the schema. This compensates for the missing schema coverage and enhances understanding.

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 'Render a boxplot or violin chart' and explains what it shows (median, quartiles, whiskers, outliers). This verb+resource combination, along with the title 'Boxplot / Violin', makes the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling chart 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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Pass raw number arrays per category - stats computed automatically' and 'Use style='violin' for density shape.' This guides the agent on when to use each style. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative chart types like histograms or distribution plots, slightly limiting guidance for selecting among siblings.

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