origin_view_graph

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

The description details the full lifecycle: renders to temporary PNG, returns as image content block with text summary, deletes temp file. It also explains the side effect of max_width controlling token costs. Since no annotations exist, this is comprehensive.

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second contrasts with sibling, third gives usage, fourth explains a parameter, fifth notes a prerequisite. No wasted sentences; each adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (image content block + text summary) and the temporary file deletion. It covers behavior, parameters, usage, and constraints, making the tool's context complete.

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?

The description explicitly explains 'max_width' purpose: bounds pixel width to keep image and token cost small. 'graph_name' is implied by the tool's purpose but not detailed further. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning, though graph_name could be clearer.

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 that the tool renders an Origin graph as an image for the model to see, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'origin_export_graph' by noting it leaves no file behind. The verb 'render' and resource 'graph' are specific.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use it to visually verify a plot and iterate on it.' It also contrasts with 'origin_export_graph' and notes the requirement for a vision-capable client, indicating when not to use (if client lacks vision). The context of iteration is clear.

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