Spss Chart Bar Error

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only names the underlying mechanism (GGRAPH + OMS). It does not say whether the chart is written to a file or returned inline, whether it operates on the active dataset or a named file, whether OMS routing changes session output state, or what permissions/state effects exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the artifact and formats come first. 'via GGRAPH + OMS' is implementation jargon that adds little for an agent choosing the tool, but it is brief.

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 an 11-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input semantics, dataset source, and side effects are all missing.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It only implicitly touches ci (confidence-interval error bars) and image_format (PNG/TIFF/EMF); required parameters category and value, plus data_file, dpi, width_px, height_px, title, x_label and y_label, are left with no added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and a well-defined artifact: a bar chart of category means with confidence-interval error bars, plus supported formats (PNG/TIFF/EMF). This differentiates it reasonably well from spss_chart_bar and spss_chart_errorbar, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With close siblings like spss_chart_bar (plain bars) and spss_chart_errorbar (error bars) in the list, the description should say which situation selects this combined means-plus-CI chart, but it gives no conditions or alternatives.

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