plot_missingness

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output format (JSON + inline PNG) but does not clarify side effects, whether it requires a loaded source, how the PNG is encoded, or edge cases (e.g., all values present). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 exceptionally concise, using only two short sentences to convey the core purpose and output format. There is no redundant wording, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 simple schema (one param), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but misses important context. It does not explain when to use the tool, what the JSON contains, or how to interpret the PNG, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for a plotting tool.

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?

The schema has one parameter (source_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. Although the parameter name and tool context imply it identifies the data source, the description fails to explicitly explain its meaning or usage, leaving a gap for the agent.

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 defines the tool as a per-column null-percentage bar chart, which is a specific and distinct purpose among sibling plot tools. It also states the output format (JSON + inline PNG), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 like plot_distribution or check_* tools. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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