plot_multi_expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Plot') without revealing whether the tool performs a read-only operation, displays a plot, returns a graphic object, or has any side effects such as modifying session state. This lack of context leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundant words. It is front-loaded and suitable for a tool with straightforward behavior, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of a full input schema, and an output schema (not shown but indicated as existing), the brief description covers the core function. However, it lacks important context such as usage guidelines and behavioral details (e.g., whether plots are returned or displayed), which are essential for an agent to invoke the tool 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including 'expressions', 'variable', 'range_min', and 'range_max'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema descriptions are sufficient for understanding parameter roles. Thus, the baseline score 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 'Plot multiple expressions overlaid on a single 2D graph' uses a specific verb ('plot') and resource ('multiple expressions'), and the 'overlaid' and '2D' qualifiers clearly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'plot_expression' (which likely handles single expressions) and 'plot3d_expression'. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.

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 implies usage for multiple expressions on one graph but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'plot_expression' or provide exclusion criteria. There is no direct comparison or mention of prerequisites, making the usage guidance merely implied rather than explicit.

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