plot_analysis_result

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the return behavior: by default it returns the plot image, while return_image=False returns only the saved path. It also discloses file_path behavior and default directory handling. It does not mention file overwriting or side effects, but the readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals this is not a read-only operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and default behavior, followed by a structured Args list. The bilingual repetition lengthens it but serves a real audience, and each parameter is covered without excessive fluff. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but well organized.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers all parameters, provides semantic detail for each, and explains the return behavior. It could add a explicit note about running analysis first or about side effects of saving files, but overall it gives enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 carries the full parameter documentation burden. It compensates thoroughly: result_type lists all valid enum-like values, stage_id explains special meanings (-1, 0, n), component gives concrete examples, and return_image/file_path behavior is fully specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate an analysis result contour plot'. It lists allowed result types and clarifies the default return behavior, which makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from raw-data retrieval or screenshot tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 context is reasonably clear: this is for plotting analysis results, with parameters like stage_id, case_name, and result_type implying that it is used after an analysis exists. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_analysis_results or save_model_screenshot, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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