mike_plot_rain_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that no license is needed and that rainfall is optional. However, it does not detail behavior such as whether the file is overwritten, time alignment handling, or error conditions for missing rain_dfs0. For a plotting tool, these are not critical but a bit more detail would improve transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose and adding necessary usage details. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff or 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 the tool's simplicity (5 params, 3 required, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core aspects: data sources, optionality, and licensing. The mention of 'house style' is vague but acceptable for an internal tool. It does not include error handling or data format expectations, but for a plot tool these are secondary.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds context linking res1d to the source file and element to the flow series, but does not provide additional details beyond the schema. For example, the schema already says element is 'Reach/link or node id'. The description does not compensate for the missing description of the res1d parameter in 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?

Description clearly states the tool renders a 'stacked two-panel rainfall-runoff figure' with specific details (rain inverted on top, flow on bottom, house style). Verb 'Render' and resource 'rainfall-runoff figure' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like mike_plot_timeseries which plots generic timeseries.

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 explains that flow comes from a .res1d element and rainfall is optional from a .dfs0, giving clear context for when to use this tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the contrast with sibling tools like mike_plot_timeseries is implicit. The 'No license needed' note is helpful.

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