spss_chart_bar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions output formats (PNG/TIFF/EMF), publication-ready, and the underlying method (GGRAPH + OMS IMAGE), but doesn't disclose side effects, file saving behavior, or requirements. This adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key options. No redundant or unnecessary phrasing.

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?

With 11 parameters and no annotations, the description only covers a subset of parameters and lacks usage caveats. The output schema covers return values, but the description's thinness forces the agent to infer several parameter meanings (e.g., width_px, height_px, data_file) and chart behavior (e.g., how missing values are handled). This is a moderate gap for an agent to select and invoke the tool accurately.

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 explains category, value, and stat via the main purpose sentence, and image_format explicitly mentions PNG/TIFF/EMF. However, other 8 params (dpi, title, x_label, y_label, width_px, height_px, data_file) are left to inference from their names, providing only partial compensation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Export' and clearly identifies the resource: a publication-ready bar chart of a categorical variable against the mean/sum of a continuous variable. This clearly differentiates it from sibling chart tools like spss_chart_histogram or spss_chart_line by specifying the bar chart type and aggregation.

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?

Description provides clear context about the tool's purpose (bar chart for categorical vs continuous) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like spss_chart_bar_error or spss_chart_histogram. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are included.

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