diana_plot_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: it operates on the GUI RESULT view (transient view-state change), needs pre-loaded results, defaults to the first load case, and enforces item_type for non-nodal/non-prefixed labels. It still omits what happens on an invalid combination or where the screenshot ends up.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and the Args list is tight, one line per parameter. A few entries (width/height pixels) merely restate obvious enum/default information, but nothing is padded or redundant enough to obscure the important guidance.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is nearly self-sufficient: it explains the screenshot return, the dependency on loaded results, and each parameter. Remaining gaps are error behavior and whether the view state persists after the call.

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%, so the description carries the full burden — and it does, documenting all 12 parameters with examples ('DtY', 'SXX'), the item_type requirement rule, layer accepting a number/'maximum'/'minimum', and practical camera advice ('2D models in the XY plane are best seen from "top"').

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 first sentence names a specific verb, target view, and return value: 'Plot a result in DianaIE's RESULT view and return a screenshot.' It is clearly distinct from diana_screenshot (generic capture) and diana_results_table (numeric extraction).

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?

Prerequisite chaining is stated implicitly via references to diana_load_results ('result label from diana_load_results'), which tells the agent results must be loaded first. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus siblings such as diana_results_table or diana_screenshot, and no statement of failure conditions.

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