spss_chart_area

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the implementation (GGRAPH + OMS) but does not reveal side effects such as file overwriting, output management changes, or error handling. No details on missing data or validation behavior are provided.

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 is front-loaded with the action ('Export') and includes all essential information without fluff. Every word contributes value.

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 10 parameters and many sibling chart types, the description provides a minimal viable definition but lacks guidance on file output, data_file usage, or interaction with other settings. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description remains somewhat thin for the complexity involved.

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 only clarifies x and y ('y against a time/ordinal x variable'), leaving dpi, title, width, height, data_file, and other parameters unexplained. The mention of formats partially covers image_format but not the rest.

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 exports a publication-ready area chart, specifies output formats (PNG/TIFF/EMF), and defines the relationship between y and a time/ordinal x variable. This distinguishes it from sibling chart tools like line or scatter plots.

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 clear usage context by specifying that the chart plots y against a time/ordinal x variable, implying when an area chart is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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