Spss Chart Errorbar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and leaves major gaps: where the exported file is written, whether existing files are overwritten, whether SPSS must be running, and what side effects GGRAPH/OMS execution has. Mentioning the GGRAPH + OMS pipeline is mildly informative but does not substitute for operational behavior disclosure.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the deliverable and enumerates formats and statistical content without wasted words. The GGRAPH + OMS implementation detail is arguably extra, but it is compact and informative.

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 export tool with no annotations, the description should explain output destination, required data context, and the roles of the dimension and resolution parameters. The presence of an output schema relieves the need to describe return values, but the operational gaps remain substantial.

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. It implies the meaning of 'ci' (confidence-interval whiskers) and lists the image_format values, but says nothing about category, value, data_file, dpi, width_px, height_px, title, or axis labels.

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 and resource: exporting an error bar chart showing mean with confidence-interval whiskers per category, with explicit output formats (PNG/TIFF/EMF). It distinguishes itself from nearby chart siblings like spss_chart_bar_error only implicitly, but the chart type and statistical content are clear.

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 never says when to choose this over spss_chart_bar_error, spss_chart_boxplot, or spss_chart_line, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an active SPSS session or required data_file. The agent must infer usage from the chart type alone.

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