plot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the output type (SVG image), the presence of axes/grid/labels, and asymptote detection in an example. It does not mention error handling or limitations, but covers the key behavior of returning an image.

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 core statement, then a brief output description, followed by concise, well-chosen examples. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively complete: it states the return type, mentions asymptote detection, and shows usage patterns. It lacks explicit details on expression syntax limitations, but the examples plus full schema coverage make it sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value with examples that illustrate usage of x_min/x_max and expression syntax, going beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 plots a mathematical function as an SVG graph, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (verify, compute) by focusing on graphical output.

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 clear context through examples, showing typical usage like 'plot sin(x) from -2*pi to 2*pi'. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use, but the examples and focus on graphing imply its intended use case.

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