plot_area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool renders a plot, implying a visual output, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns an image file, displays interactively, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The example shows parameter usage but lacks context on the tool's operation or output format.

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 description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a note on parameters and an example. There's minimal waste, though the example could be more integrated. It's efficient but not perfectly structured for maximum clarity.

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 the tool has an output schema (which should cover return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks context on usage scenarios, behavioral details, and full parameter explanations. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a plotting tool with multiple siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example with parameters (x, y, title, fill_color), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain all 9 parameters (e.g., width, height, opacity, x_label, y_label), leaving gaps. The baseline is lower due to low coverage, and the description partially helps but isn't comprehensive.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Render filled area under a curve.' It specifies the verb ('render') and resource ('filled area under a curve'), making it distinct from siblings like plot_line or plot_scatter. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from plot_bar or plot_histogram which might also involve filled areas, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It mentions 'Simple flat parameters - no nested objects!' which hints at parameter structure but doesn't help an agent choose between plot_area, plot_line, or other plotting tools. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or alternatives named.

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