Open Boxplot chart app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond that. It mentions data formats (rows, tree, nodes/links) but does not disclose details like whether opening an app generates a new instance or modifies state. With annotations, the bar is lower but additional context would help.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and providing brief usage hints. 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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, parameter relationships (e.g., which encoding fields are required), or how the chart is populated. A more comprehensive description is needed.

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 has 100% coverage, so the description adds little new parameter meaning. The description states 'data holds rows, tree, or nodes/links; encoding maps fields' but this mostly restates schema information. 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 clearly identifies the tool as for opening a boxplot chart focused on distribution summaries and outlier context, and the title and name are consistent. However, the phrase 'focused boxplot MCP App' is somewhat jargon-y and could be more precise.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other chart types like open_bar or open_line). It only implicitly suggests use for distribution/outlier context, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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