spss_chart_bar_error

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency, but it only reveals that it exports via GGRAPH + OMS. It does not disclose side effects like file creation or overwriting, prerequisites, required data context, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for an export 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the key action, resource, and output formats. No redundant filler or excessive detail; it earns its place efficiently.

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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity (11 parameters, 2 required), the description gives no guidance on data source, parameter semantics, or output handling. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable invocation.

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 description hints that 'category' and 'value' are used for means and that image_format may be one of the listed formats, but it does not explain critical parameters like ci, dpi, width_px, height_px, labels, title, or data_file. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter context across 11 parameters.

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 specific verb 'Export' and clearly identifies the resource: a bar chart of category means with confidence-interval error bars. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spss_chart_bar and spss_chart_errorbar, and the format list (PNG/TIFF/EMF) adds further specificity.

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 phrase 'category means with confidence-interval error bars' conveys a clear use case that differs from simpler bar charts or standalone error bar charts. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives or provide any exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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