spss_chart_boxplot

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that the tool exports a file (implying non-mutating behavior) and mentions GGRAPH + OMS as the underlying mechanism, but it does not disclose potential side effects like file overwriting, output location, error conditions, or limitations. Key behavioral aspects remain unclear.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and required inputs. There is no fluff or redundant detail—every word earns its place. This is a model of efficient writing.

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 no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain critical parameters like data_file, dpi, width/height, or image_format, and does not differentiate usage from sibling chart tools sufficiently. Although an output schema exists, the description still leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further schema inspection.

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 references a 'continuous variable' and 'categorical grouping variable,' which loosely map to the 'variable' and 'category' parameters, but it provides no guidance on the other eight parameters such as dpi, dimensions, image_format, or data_file. The description adds only minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.

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's function: exporting a publication-ready box-and-whisker plot in PNG/TIFF/EMF formats. It specifically identifies the chart type, distinguishing it from sibling chart tools like scatter, bar, and line. The verb 'Export' plus the specific resource makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for creating boxplots by specifying required input (continuous variable and optional categorical group), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to other chart tools are mentioned, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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