Plot SCAPS results

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of context the annotations cannot convey: it requires the optional 'plot' extra, which can fail if uninstalled. However, it says nothing about how the PNG is returned (inline content, file path, base64) or how overlays are composed, which matters for a 9-parameter render tool.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded. Brevity is appropriate; the issue is missing content rather than excess.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, an undocumented return shape and half the parameters undescribed, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what it receives back or how to control axis scaling and image size from the description alone.

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 only 56%, and the description contributes zero parameter information. Key controls like log_x, log_y, and width_px have no description anywhere, and the overlay semantics of the 'files' array are only partially covered by 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?

States a specific verb and output artifact: render result curves as a PNG image. This differentiates it implicitly from data-oriented siblings like scaps_results, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus scaps_results (fetch data) or scaps_optimize. The only usage-adjacent statement is the dependency on the optional 'plot' extra, which is a prerequisite, not a when-to-use rule.

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