Show the relative error (MAX/RMS) for a specified plot to quickly assess accuracy. Use plot path and optional subplot number to display error metrics directly in the Plot window.
Show relative error (MAX/RMS) on Plot window. Equivalent to ShowRelativeError in IC-CAP GUI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plot_path | Yes | Plot object path | |
| plot_number | No | Optional: Multiplot sub-plot number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says the tool 'show relative error' and gives no information about side effects, whether it requires an active plot, whether it modifies the plot window state, or any error behavior. This leaves an agent without safety or side-effect awareness.
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 extremely compact: the core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the parenthetical 'MAX/RMS' adds precise metric detail. The second sentence contributes valuable domain equivalence without redundancy. No wasted words.
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?
Despite being a simple tool, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain what happens upon invocation, whether the operation is read-only, what plot_path refers to beyond the schema, or whether any preconditions must be met. With no annotations and no output schema, an agent has insufficient context to invoke it confidently.
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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (plot_path and plot_number) with 100% coverage, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('Show'), a specific resource ('Plot window'), and a precise quantity ('relative error (MAX/RMS)'). It also grounds the tool in domain context by referencing 'ShowRelativeError in IC-CAP GUI', and the distinction from the sibling 'plot_show_absolute_error' is clear from the name and description.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as plot_show_absolute_error, or about prerequisites like whether a plot must already exist or how plot_path should be resolved. The only contextual hint is the IC-CAP equivalence, which is not actionable usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.