plot_static_boxplot

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the plotting libraries but omits side effects (e.g., file output), return value, performance, or limitations. The output schema exists but the description does not explain what it returns.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the key purpose. However, under-specification limits its utility; it is not appropriately sized given the tool's complexity.

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 (6 required params, output schema, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter guidance, output clarification, and differentiation from similar tools, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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. It provides no explanation or context for any of the six required parameters (data_file_path, x_column, y_column, title, x_label, y_label), leaving their meaning and required format entirely unspecified.

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 generates a static box plot using Matplotlib/Seaborn, specifying its intended use for papers/publications. It distinguishes from siblings like interactive boxplot by mentioning 'static' and from other static plot types by naming 'box plot'.

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 minimal guidance: 'for papers/publications' hints at a use case but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like plot_interactive_boxplot or other static plots. No when-not-to-use or selection criteria are given.

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