plot_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output artifact (PNG) and what is visualized, which is useful, but does not state whether the tool writes a file or returns bytes, whether it is read-only, or what happens if the run_id is invalid.

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 unnecessary words. The key output format ('PNG') is included without burying the purpose.

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 simple one-parameter plotting tool, the description covers what is rendered and the output format. However, it omits the meaning and sourcing of run_id and any indication of error behavior, leaving a noticeable gap for correct invocation.

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% for the single required parameter 'run_id', and the description does not explain what a run_id is or where to obtain one. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') and names the exact resource and outputs: floor plan with true and estimated tracks plus error over time, as a PNG. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like error_breakdown or compare_filters.

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?

Usage is implied: you render after a run exists, but the description does not say when to choose this over error_breakdown or other diagnostic tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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