List Plot Suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose, such as whether a valid schematic is required, what the suggestions contain, or any dependency on saved state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary context about the required schematic input and the nature of the suggestions, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

For a tool that requires a schematic path and returns plot suggestions without an output schema, the description should explain what the suggestions are based on and what they contain. Instead it gives only a one-line purpose, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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 only 50%: workspace_root is described, but the required schematic_path is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not mention either parameter or explain what schematic_path should point to, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a clear verb ('Suggest') and resource ('voltages and currents an agent can plot'), so an agent can tell it produces plot suggestions. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_signals or list_measures, which may also list plottable quantities, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_signals or plot_waveforms. The phrase 'an agent can plot' implies it is used before plotting, but no explicit when/when-not or prerequisites are stated.

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