Spss Chart Scatter

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by naming the return value (a chart file path for direct submission) and the rendering pipeline (GGRAPH + OMS IMAGE), but it omits that the call writes a file to disk, whether an existing file is overwritten, and which dataset is charted when data_file is omitted.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output formats. 'Via GGRAPH + OMS IMAGE' is mildly implementation-flavored but does signal the SPSS-specific rendering path; nothing is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value needs no explanation, yet the description spends a clause on it while leaving ten parameters and an absent annotation set unaddressed. For a charting tool that resolves its own dataset and writes to disk, the missing data_file and file-write semantics are significant gaps.

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 10 parameters, and the description only touches x, y, and implicitly the format enum. Seven parameters — dpi, title, x_label, y_label, width_px, height_px, and especially data_file — receive no meaning from either the schema or the prose, so an agent cannot tell what data_file does or whether it is needed.

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 — export a scatter plot — plus the concrete output formats (PNG/TIFF/EMF). An agent can distinguish it from spss_chart_histogram or spss_chart_line by chart type, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only usage guidance is 'Provide x and y variables,' which is a restatement of the required parameters rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing says when a scatter plot is preferable to the other chart siblings, nor what state the session must be in beforehand.

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