create_scatter_3d

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions interactivity, WebGL, and orbit capability, but does not disclose potential performance issues, data size limits, or side effects. The return format is partially described, but lacks detail on the 'rows' field.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the key purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's capability, ideal uses, and return structure without unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (3D chart with 10 parameters), the description provides a good overview of its capabilities and typical use cases. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description could be more thorough about interactive features.

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 minimal extra beyond what's in the schema, only summarizing the optional encodings (color, size, symbol). No additional constraints or examples are provided for parameters.

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 it creates an interactive 3D scatter/bubble chart using WebGL, with three numeric dimensions and optional encodings. It distinguishes itself from sibling chart types like create_bubble_map and create_cone_3d by specifying the 3D scatter format.

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 provides context for ideal use cases (spatial data, district × year × population, exploring three census indicators) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. However, the guidance is clear enough for typical scenarios.

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