spss_chart_errorbar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the implementation via GGRAPH + OMS and the supported output formats (PNG/TIFF/EMF), but does not explain side effects, file handling (e.g., overwriting), prerequisites (like active dataset or required variables), or how the output is returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 front-loads the essential purpose (export chart) and includes key specifics (formats, statistical content, implementation). There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's core function.

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 having an output schema, the description lacks crucial context for an 11-parameter tool: it does not explain the role of data_file, dimensions, format details, or how the chart is generated and returned. The absence of parameter descriptions and behavior notes makes it incomplete for reliable invocation, particularly in edge cases or customizations.

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%, and the description only hints at a few parameters: 'mean' relates to value, 'category' relates to category, and 'confidence-interval' relates to ci. It does not explain the meaning of dpi, image_format, width_px, height_px, title, labels, or data_file. Thus, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving many parameters opaque to the agent.

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 error bar chart with mean and confidence-interval whiskers per category. The verb 'Export' is specific, the resource is well-defined, and the scope (mean with CI whiskers) distinguishes it from general bar charts or histograms. Though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the unique chart type and formats make the purpose unambiguous.

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 when an error bar chart is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spss_chart_bar_error or spss_chart_bar. There are no exclusion criteria or mentions of other chart tools, so the guidance is merely implied rather than clearly articulated.

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