Plot a nebula template spectrum with selected CIE observer luminance functions overlaid to compare colorimetric response across standard observers.
Plot a template spectrum with each observer's luminance function ȳ(λ) overlaid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ebv | No | ||
| template | Yes | ||
| observers | No | Standard observers to compare; default CIE 1931 2° and CIE 1964 10°. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that a plot is produced, but does not disclose whether it returns a figure, displays it, saves a file, or how errors or missing templates are handled.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter detail.
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 plotting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the meaning of ebv, the template value format, and what the caller receives after plotting.
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 low at 33%, with only the observers parameter documented in the schema. The description implicitly mentions template and observers, but never explains the ebv parameter or the expected template format, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: plotting a template spectrum with observer luminance functions overlaid. This is clearer than a vague plot tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as plot_cmf_comparison or 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling should be used for related plotting tasks. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.