compare_plot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core transformation (overlaying one value column across multiple files) and the output artifact (a comparison PNG). It is silent on defaults, what happens when column indices differ, error behavior for unreadable paths, and file-overwrite semantics for out_png, which matters for a writing tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and output are stated before the clarifying example. Efficient, though it could have spent a few more words covering the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, which lowers the bar. Still, for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and zero annotations, the definition leaves the majority of parameters and all write-side behaviors unaddressed.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies that xvg_paths is comma-separated (a genuinely useful addition) and implies value_column selects the plotted data, but title, labels, out_png, and y_from_zero are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (overlay) and resource (value column of several .xvg files) with a concrete output (one comparison PNG). The word 'several' and 'comparison' implicitly separate it from the sibling plot_xvg, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 parenthetical example 'apo vs holo RMSD' gives a clear use context, so the intended scenario is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or any guidance on when to prefer this over plot_xvg or xvg_summary.

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