plot_grid_lines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals side effects by mentioning a 'written path', describes defaults for point and line_ids, states the forty-line cap, and describes success/error return shapes. This is useful and goes well beyond a bare 'plot' statement.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence states the core behavior, and each Args/Returns line adds necessary operational detail without unnecessary prose.

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 three-parameter tool, the description covers parameters, defaults, output contract, and error behavior. An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be fully re-explained. Minor gaps remain around prerequisite conditions, such as whether the grid must already be loaded, but overall the tool is adequately specified.

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 fully compensates by explaining all three parameters. It clarifies grid_name suffix handling, point axis/units/default, and line_ids format with an example plus the forty-line cap.

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 the emission lines a local grid holds at one grid point.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like plot_grid_spectra and plot_grid_ionising_luminosity, which target different visualizations.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool: whenever emission lines from a single grid point are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, such as plot_grid_spectra, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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