spss_chart_line

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the export mechanism (GGRAPH + OMS IMAGE) and that a file path is returned, but does not clarify side effects like file overwriting, required active SPSS dataset, or variable type constraints. This is moderate transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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?

Two succinct sentences with no filler. The core purpose, required inputs, and return value are front-loaded. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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?

Provided complexity is moderate (10 params, no annotations, output schema exists). The description covers the main action and return value, but omits behaviors like file saving details, prerequisites, and parameter formats. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for a charting tool with many options.

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%. The description adds meaning for x and y (time/ordinal and the variable), but the other 8 parameters (dpi, title, labels, width, height, data_file, image_format) are not explained. Given 10 parameters, the description compensates poorly for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 line chart, names the specific technology (GGRAPH + OMS IMAGE), and lists output formats (PNG/TIFF/EMF). This distinguishes it from sibling chart tools (e.g., spss_chart_bar, spss_chart_scatter) and the verb 'Export' is specific.

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 by specifying to provide x (time/ordinal) and y variables, and the tool name makes the line chart context obvious. However, it does not explicitly exclude other chart types or reference sibling tools as alternatives, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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