plot_get_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that field names are enumerated from the live object, that a rename-aside transaction occurs on name conflicts with non-Plot objects, and that the original name is restored afterwards. This is far more transparent than a generic 'get fields' statement.

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 dense and every clause earns its place; the front-loaded one-call benefit and the explicit field lists are highly useful. However, the long semicolon-separated report-type enumeration could be more scannable with structural formatting, so it loses one point.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing exact field names for every report type, explaining conflict resolution behavior, and noting GUI-only fields that are not accessible. An agent has enough information to predict both the call and the returned field set.

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?

The schema already documents plot_path with an example and has 100% coverage. The description adds context about the Plot object's behavior but does not add new semantic information about the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('a Plot's complete field configuration'), and immediately differentiates itself from tablevar_get by offering one-call enumeration without round-trips or missed fields. It also enumerates exact field sets per report type, so an agent knows precisely what this tool is for.

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?

It explicitly positions the tool as an alternative to repeated tablevar_get calls)Skip and clarifies that In/Out Graphically are GUI runtime state not accessible via the API. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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