bacon_plot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries little additional burden. However, it discloses nothing about what the scatter plot contains, whether it renders interactively, returns a figure object, or requires any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations imply.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though it borders on under-specification. Still, every word earns its place.

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 11 parameters, a required bacon_result object with specific required keys ('decomposition' DataFrame and 'beta_twfe'), and a workflow chaining from bacon_decomposition, this description is too thin. It does not explain what the plot shows, how to chain calls, or what the required input structure guarantees. The output schema helps with return values, but the usage context is largely missing.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented structurally. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond naming the bacon_result input, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Scatter plot') and resource ('Goodman-Bacon decomposition'), cleanly identifying it as the visualization of output from bacon_decomposition. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling plot tools, but the resource reference is sufficient to know what it operates on.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that bacon_result should come from bacon_decomposition() first, nor does it contrast with other plotting tools like plot_from_result or did_plot. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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