create_cone_3d

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses interactivity (WebGL, orbit-able), return fields ({filepath, title, rows}), and explains cone coloring by magnitude and sizing by sizeref. Missing details on performance with large datasets or error handling, but adequate for most use cases.

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 well-structured: first stating what it is, then explaining rendering, differentiation from siblings, ideal uses, and return value. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy. Approximately 120 words, efficient and front-loaded.

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 14 parameters, 7 required, and output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return. It doesn't explain the output schema (acceptable since it exists) or error handling, but for a chart creation tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters like sizeref and colorscale are used in the rendering context ('Cones are colored by vector magnitude and sized by sizeref'). This provides integrative context beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool creates an interactive 3D vector field / quiver plot. It specifies the resource (3D vector field) and action (create) with detailed rendering explanation. It distinguishes itself from scalar 3D charts by emphasizing it encodes a *vector*.

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 explicitly lists ideal use cases: wind/air-flow fields, magnetic/electric fields, fluid-flow simulations, gradient directions. It also provides a clear exclusion by stating 'Distinct from the scalar 3D charts', helping the agent select the correct tool among siblings.

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