origin_graph_info

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a key behavioral trait: writes to group-member plots are refusedassed. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the group_mode consequence. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't mention return shape or explicit side-effect/purity, though the output schema partially covers return expectations.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail, but the phrase 'with the addresses styling needs' is slightly awkward and could be clearer. Still, no wasted sentences.

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?

With an output schema present and only one parameter, the description covers the why-to-use and key behavioral consequence. It is reasonably complete, though the styling-refusal behavior could be elaborated slightly. The primary gap is the undocumented 'graph' parameter format, which affects completeness.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not clarify what the 'graph' parameter should be — name, ID, path, or handle. The tool name implies a graph identifier, but the description adds no format or resolution details beyond the schema, leaving the field ambiguous.

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 states a specific action (list) and resource (a graph's layers and plots), and notes it also carries styling addresses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like origin_plot_option_get (targeted option retrieval) and origin_axis_get (axis outcomes), so an agent can clearly differentiate it.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'check here before trying to style one', providing a concrete when-to-use directive tied to the refusal behavior. This is actionable guidance that tells the agent to call this tool before attempting write operations, clearly distinguishing it from write-oriented siblings.

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