femm_make_plot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it discloses that a text file is written (a side effect), that it works headless, and that the return includes the file path, column header, and min/max/mean of sampled values. It does not say whether a solved problem or open session is required, but the core behavior and return payload are well covered.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by dense but necessary plot_type enumerations that compensate for zero schema description coverage. It is somewhat heavy but every block earns its place; nothing is padding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the return payload (path, header, min/max/mean) so the agent knows what comes back, and it explains the plot_type/contour semantics well. The gaps are the undocumented npts and session parameters and any prerequisite about needing a solved problem.

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 must compensate, and it does so for the hardest parameter by fully enumerating plot_type codes per physics mode and describing the contour format. However, npts, session, and (partially) path are left undocumented, so coverage of the 5 params is incomplete.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Sample a quantity along a contour ... to a text file.' It also states the mechanism (xo_makeplot) and that it works headless, which is concrete. However, it never names or contrasts with the adjacent sibling femm_plot_field, so an agent must still infer which plotting tool is appropriate.

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 — sample a quantity along a contour and export to text — and 'works headless' is a useful operational note. But there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as femm_plot_field or femm_line_integral, leaving the choice to inference.

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