Generates a P–Ṗ pulsar diagram highlighting PWN-powering pulsars by class and overlaying constant magnetic field, characteristic age, and spin-down power lines for population comparison.
P–Ṗ diagram of pulsars with the PWN-powering pulsars highlighted by PWN class, and lines of constant magnetic field, characteristic age and spin-down power.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_atnf | No | Show all ATNF pulsars in grey (network, cached). |
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 discloses what the plot visually contains, including PWN class highlighting and constant-field/age/spin-down lines, but it does not describe the return format or any rendering behavior.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the diagram type and then lists the additional plotted elements. It is efficient overall, though it omits useful context such as return format.
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 is relatively simple and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain the return value or what the rendered plot will be, rather than only listing plot contents.
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?
There is only one parameter, include_atnf, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains its meaning. The tool description adds no additional semantics about this parameter, making the baseline score of 3 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 clearly identifies a specific plot type (P–Pdot diagram) and its main contents, including highlighting PWN-powering pulsars by PWN class and adding lines of constant magnetic field, characteristic age, and spin-down power. It does not explicitly differentiate this plotting tool from sibling plotting tools such as plot_population or plot_galactic_map.
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 explains what the plot contains but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools such as plot_population.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.