plot_density_slice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains the input format, optional axis labels/units, and colormap defaults, but omits behavior around output_path (e.g., overwriting), the meaning of the cryptic '(3-4)', or what happens with title/molecule parameters.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by brief parameter clarifications. The '(3-4)' is unclear and the text could be tightened, but there is no wasted verbiage overall.

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 plotting tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and key parameters but misses important details like how output_path is used and what the return value is. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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%, but the description adds useful semantics for slice_data, cell_lengths, axes_labels, and colormap. However, it does not explain output_path (required), title, or molecule, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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 states a specific action ('Render a 2D density slice'), a specific resource ('from parse_density_grid()'), and the output format ('heatmap PNG'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling parse_density_grid and other plotting tools.

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 explicitly references parse_density_grid() as the source of slice_data, making the tool's prerequisite clear. It does not name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is strong and the intended workflow is implied.

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