plot_interactive_scatterplot

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., performance, auto-saving, error handling, or required permissions). It only states the output type without elaborating on side effects or constraints.

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 sentence and thus very concise and front-loaded. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, it may be too under-specified, making it less useful despite its brevity.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is minimal but covers the essential purpose. It does not explain return format or provide enough context for an AI agent to confidently use it, but the output schema partially compensates.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description must compensate, but it provides no explanation of any parameter (e.g., data_file_path path format, x_column/y_column requirements). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond 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?

The description clearly states it generates a web-ready interactive Plotly scatter plot, specifying the tool, library, and plot type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like static scatter plots and other interactive plot types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose interactive over static, or what data format is required. The description lacks any prerequisites or usage context.

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