ras_plot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the output (PNG path), clarifies that overlays involve 1-4 runs, notes peak annotations for hydrographs, and specifies mesh_max is for a single HDF. It does not mention overwrite behavior or permissions, but these are less critical for a plot-generation tool.

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 dense paragraph with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence explains a distinct plot mode with relevant constraints. It packs necessary detail without redundancy.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the major behavioral branches and return value. It could be more explicit about which parameters are required for each plot type and what happens if both hdf and hdfs are provided, but it is largely sufficient for a complex tool.

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 only 55%, and the description compensates well. It explains how hdfs and labels work together, which plot types use hdf vs hdfs, the meaning of reach for profile plots, the optional mesh for mesh_max, and that kind/location/variable/mesh follow ras_results_timeseries semantics. This adds meaning beyond raw schema fields.

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 opens with a specific action ('Make a PNG figure') and clearly identifies the resource ('results HDF(s)'). It then distinguishes three distinct plot modes (hydrograph, profile, mesh_max), each with a clear behavior, which sets it apart from sibling tools like ras_results_compare or ras_results_summary.

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 gives clear context for when to use each plot variant: hydrograph for time series, profile for river station maxima, mesh_max for 2D maps. It references ras_results_timeseries for parameter details, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like ras_results_compare.

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