plot_cmf_comparison

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the visual content of the output (CMFs overlaid with marked nebular emission lines), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention return format, image output, or any operational constraints.

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 a single well-formed sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key operation and then adds the important detail about emission lines.

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?

The tool has one optional, fully described parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains the plot content, but because there are no annotations or output schema, it should ideally state the return type or output format for an agent invoking a plotting tool.

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%, and the single observers parameter is fully documented with enum values and a default. The description aligns with the schema by referring to 'chosen observers' but adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: overlay colour-matching functions for chosen observers, with nebular emission lines marked. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby plotting siblings such as plot_chromaticity_comparison.

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 states what the plot contains but gives no guidance on when to use this tool rather than plot_chromaticity_comparison, nebula_color, or render_color_swatches. There are no exclusions or contextual triggers for selecting this tool.

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