generate_boxplot_chart

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover—it doesn't mention output format (e.g., image URL, base64), performance characteristics, or any side effects. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the baseline for tools with annotations but adds minimal extra value.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key use case. It avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by explicitly mentioning it's for statistical comparison, but it's already quite efficient.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't address output (e.g., chart format, error handling) or advanced usage scenarios. With annotations covering safety, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps for a generative tool with multiple configuration options.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it doesn't explain the structure of the 'data' array beyond what the schema already describes, nor does it provide examples of valid 'style' configurations. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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's purpose: 'Generate a boxplot chart to show data for statistical summaries among different categories.' It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('boxplot chart'), and provides a concrete example of its use case ('comparing the distribution of data points across categories'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (e.g., generate_histogram_chart, generate_violin_chart), which are also used for statistical visualization, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 24 sibling tools on the server, including other statistical charts like histogram, violin, and scatter charts, the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate visualization tool for a given scenario. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be preferred over other options.

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