plot_summary

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: output is a PNG rendered inline, keys support wildcards in either array or string form, twin-axis behavior groups by engineering unit, and no ResInsight/OpenGL is needed. It does not mention side effects like writing to output_path or max_points downsampling, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, parameter quirks, and the tool's niche with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes new information relevant to invoking the tool correctly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic usage but not complete: it omits behavior of start/end filtering, max_points, and output_path. For a tool with 9 parameters and only 2 required, an agent still has to infer a fair amount about the optional inputs.

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 explains the non-obvious semantics of keys (wildcards, accepted formats), x_axis values, and twin_axis grouping. However, several parameters (start, end, max_points, output_path, title) receive no explanation beyond the schema names/types, leaving gaps for a 9-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Plot summary vectors to a PNG, rendered inline in the chat.' It also differentiates itself from heavyweight alternatives with 'No ResInsight/OpenGL needed — the fast path for rate/pressure/cumulative plots,' making clear it is a specialized plotting tool rather than a generic viewer.

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?

It provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate ('fast path for rate/pressure/cumulative plots', no ResInsight/OpenGL required), which indirectly distinguishes it from ResInsight-based siblings. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when Y' statement or a named alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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