plot_scatter

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' points, implying a visual output, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what format the output takes (image file, HTML, etc.), whether it's interactive, or any performance considerations. The example shows parameters but doesn't explain the tool's behavior beyond basic rendering.

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 with the core purpose. The example is useful but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though the 'Simple flat parameters' note could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly structured.

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's complexity (rendering visualizations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and provides an example, but lacks details on output format, behavioral traits, and usage guidelines. With no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, it's adequate but has clear gaps for effective tool selection.

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 x, y, title, and color parameters, adding some semantic context beyond the schema's property names. However, it doesn't explain all 10 parameters (e.g., width, height, point_radius, opacity, x_label, y_label), leaving gaps. The baseline would be lower due to low coverage, but the example provides partial compensation.

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 discrete 2D points.' It specifies the verb ('render') and resource ('discrete 2D points'), making it clear this creates scatter plots. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like plot_line or plot_contour beyond the 'scatter' name, which is why it's not a 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 alternatives. It mentions 'Simple flat parameters - no nested objects!' which is a technical constraint but not usage context. With multiple sibling plotting tools available, there's no indication of when scatter plots are appropriate compared to line plots, bar charts, etc.

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