plot_display

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important threading behavior: direct gateway execution remains on the UI thread, implying potential blocking. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites like an active GUI session, error handling for invalid plot_path, or whether the call returns anything.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the most important execution-mode nuance. Every phrase earns its place and the structure supports quick scanning.

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?

For a relatively simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, the key execution-mode decision, and the schema fully documents the parameters. It could be improved by briefly contrasting with plot_setup or noting the need for a running IC-CAP GUI, but these are gaps rather than critical omissions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of run_async=false: direct gateway execution remains on the UI thread. This helps an agent reason about blocking behavior and job management.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Display a Plot in the IC-CAP GUI.' This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like plot_setup or plot_capture_window by its explicit GUI display behavior, though it does not name any sibling or contrast itself with them directly.

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 useful execution-mode guidance: use run_async=true for broker-managed jobs and notes that direct gateway execution stays on the UI thread. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over plot_setup or other plot-related siblings, and it lacks any exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions.

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