plot_optimization_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter behavior (0-indexed target, axis label) but does not mention read-only status, output format (e.g., URL vs base64), or error handling. Partially informative but incomplete.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides structured parameter descriptions. It is reasonably concise for a two-parameter tool, though the Python-docstring style adds some verbosity. No superfluous sentences.

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 two parameters, the description covers parameter usage but lacks details about the returned image (e.g., format, size, how it's returned) and potential errors. For a plot tool, some completeness gaps exist.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail. For 'target', it clarifies indexing, auto for single-objective, and required for multi-objective. For 'target_name', it states its display purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's default values.

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 starts with 'Return the optimization history plot as an image,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling plotting tools (e.g., plot_contour, plot_slice) by its specific focus on optimization history, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 usage context for the 'target' parameter (single vs multi-objective optimization) but does not specify when to use this tool over alternative plotting tools or when not to use it. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.

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