annotate_plot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as additive ('add annotations'), but does not mention whether annotations are permanent, cumulative, or require specific permissions. For a mutation tool, more context on side effects is needed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides concrete examples in the second sentence. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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's complexity (12 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for agent understanding. It covers the primary use cases, but could briefly mention that different annotation types require different parameter combinations. Overall complete for selection and 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The general description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 action (add annotations and overlays) and the resource (existing plot). It includes examples like marking thresholds, highlighting regions, and adding reference lines and labels, which precisely define the tool's scope and distinguish it from siblings like modify_plot.

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 mentions common use cases ('marking thresholds, highlighting regions, or adding reference lines and labels'), which implies when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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