spss_chart_scatter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the export mechanism (GGRAPH + OMS IMAGE), the output formats (PNG/TIFF/EMF), and the return of a file path—useful behavioral details beyond the schema. It doesn't mention whether the tool overwrites files or how data is sourced (e.g., active dataset vs. data_file parameter), which is a slight gap, but the core outcome is well disclosed.

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 purpose and then gives a quick usage note. It avoids fluff and every clause earns its place. However, it is almost too terse for a tool with 10 parameters, but for conciseness alone it's efficient and clear.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and schema descriptions cover none of the parameters. The one-sentence description leaves critical gaps, particularly the data_file parameter (how to supply data if no active dataset exists) and the meaning of visualization options like dpi, labels, and dimensions. Even though an output schema exists, the lack of guidance on data source and optional formatting makes the description incomplete for effective use.

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 for parameter meanings. It only clarifies x and y variables and optionally implies the image format list (PNG/TIFF/EMF). Many parameters remain unexplained: dpi, title, x_label, y_label, width_px, height_px, data_file, and image_format defaults. The description provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type/default information, leaving users guessing about data_file and formatting options.

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 scatter plot in PNG/TIFF/EMF formats using GGRAPH + OMS IMAGE. The verb 'Export' and specific resource 'scatter plot' distinguish it from sibling chart tools like histogram or bar. It also mentions the key inputs (x and y variables), making 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 gives direct instruction to provide x and y variables, which is the core usage. It also notes that the chart file path is returned for direct submission, providing context for when this tool is appropriate (e.g., preparing publication figures). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative chart tools or state when not to use it, though the name and sibling list make this somewhat implicit.

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