create_figure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the server builds the figure, surfaces schema errors, and returns it as a JSON string. This gives the agent a clear picture of what happens during execution, including validation and return format.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage guideline, behavioral note. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 has one parameter with nested structure, an output schema, and siblings, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavior. It could potentially mention that the output is a JSON string of the validated figure, which it does. No critical gaps remain.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, and the description's phrasing about the figure spec largely echoes the schema. It adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Construct and validate a Plotly figure from a full figure spec' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'full control over traces and layout', implying the other tools are for simpler or different purposes.

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 includes a direct usage guideline: 'Use this when you want full control over traces and layout.' This helps the agent select this tool over siblings for full control tasks, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.

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