plot_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states output files but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or how it behaves in failure cases. The implied behavior is generating static files, which is minimally transparent.

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 concise, using a single sentence to convey output file paths. However, it lacks a clear action verb and is structured as a list rather than a coherent directive. It could be improved by front-loading a verb and clarifying the scope.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description fails to explain the context of the figures, required inputs (workdir), or when to invoke it. It only names output files, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand proper usage.

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 only parameter 'workdir' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool's description does not explain its purpose or format. The parameter is self-explanatory in name, but the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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 specifies that the tool generates two specific figures related to DB matching, providing clear resource identification. However, it lacks a direct verb (e.g., 'generates' or 'plots'), relying on implicit meaning from 'figures'. It does not differentiate among siblings, but the tool name and context are distinct enough.

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 says 'Always-on' which implies it is intended for routine use, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. No exclusion criteria or context for optimal use is provided.

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