plot_hypervolume_history

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 fails to mention side effects, authorization needs, or output format (e.g., whether the image is returned as bytes or base64). The only behavior stated is 'return the plot,' which is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise with a single-line summary followed by a structured Args block. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be shorter if the docstring format is considered standard.

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's single parameter and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. An agent lacks information on the return format, prerequisite study state, and interpretation of the plot, making it difficult to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the parameter description must compensate. It explains that reference_point is a list of points for hypervolume calculation, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it does not specify constraints like number of points, range, or precision, leaving gaps.

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 it returns a hypervolume history plot as an image, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling plot tools like plot_contour or plot_edf by specifying 'hypervolume history'. However, it does not explain what hypervolume history is, leaving some ambiguity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of trials with hypervolume) or provide context for when hypervolume history is relevant, such as in multi-objective optimization.

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