plot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a JPEG image and warns that reading values off the picture is guesswork, which is a meaningful behavioral caveat. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but for a plotting tool this is adequate.

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 sentences: the first states the core action and output, the second provides usage guidance and a contrast with simulate. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, output format, and usage constraints, which is sufficient for a simple plotting tool. However, it omits parameter-level details and does not explain how the 'analysis' parameter affects the plot. Given the tool's simplicity, it is still fairly complete.

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 coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'netlist' implicitly and gives no information about the 'defines' or 'analysis' parameters. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents without guidance on optional parameters.

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 clearly states that the tool runs a netlist and returns a Micro-Cap rendered plot as a JPEG image. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'simulate' tool by specifying that it is for visual inspection only, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to *look* at a waveform' and 'For numbers to reason about, use simulate', providing both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use with a named alternative. This gives an agent clear decision-making guidance.

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