reinvent_plot_rl_history

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the absence of plot generation in inspect mode ('No plots are generated'), the standard set of plots generated in plot mode, output directory defaults, and return value (paths of saved PNGs). It also notes precedence behavior when both job_id and csv_path are supplied.

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 well-structured with clear sections and formatting. It is front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then the two-call protocol, then a concise parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description is complete: it covers the two modes, parameter semantics, default paths, return values, and runtime applicability. It gives the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly in both inspect and plot scenarios.

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%, but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter's meaning and usage: job_id for registry lookup, csv_path for direct file access, extra_columns for selecting additional columns, and output_dir for saving plots. This significantly compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Inspect columns or generate optimisation history plots for a REINVENT4 RL run.' It specifies the exact resource and verb, and distinguishes from siblings by describing its unique two-mode behavior (inspect vs. plot).

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 strong usage context, including when it works ('mid-run and post-run') and the two-call protocol. It explicitly states input alternatives ('job_id OR csv_path') and precedence, but does not mention when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools for similar tasks.

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