plot_comparison

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a chart and returns a Base64 encoded plot, but it fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, any authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or how the chart is generated (e.g., from a database query). This is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose ('Create a comparison chart.') followed by a structured 'Args:' and 'Returns:' section. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though the formatting could be slightly more polished for clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Base64 encoded plot'), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and detailed usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool invocation.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the input schema by providing examples (e.g., 'PM2.5' for value_column) and listing chart_type options ('bar', 'horizontal_bar', 'box'), which the schema does not include. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, it only partially compensates—key parameters like 'table' and 'title' lack semantic context, and it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., grouping logic).

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 the tool's purpose: 'Create a comparison chart.' This specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('comparison chart'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'plot_funding_trend' or 'plot_time_series', which might also create charts but for different purposes, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over other plotting tools like 'plot_time_series' for time-based data or 'compare_cities' for city comparisons. This absence leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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