octane_visualize_surface

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that expressions can use x, y, r and safe math functions, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error handling, performance implications of high steps, or whether the tool generates a preview or returns data. An output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could benefit from a brief structured list or example to aid readability without adding much length.

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 tool has 7 parameters and is used for 3D surface visualization, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on how parameters interact, expected output format (though output schema exists), and use cases. The description feels incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains that the expression parameter supports x, y, r and safe math functions. The six other parameters (name, steps, x_min, x_max, y_min, y_max) are not described, leaving their meaning to be derived from defaults and titles alone.

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 visualizes z=f(x,y) as a 3D surface, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling visualization tools that handle bars, geojson, network, and scatter plots.

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 implies usage when plotting a mathematical surface function, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance is provided.

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