origin_view_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: the graph is rendered to a temporary PNG, returned as an image content block with a small text summary, and the temp file is deleted. It also notes that max_width bounds pixel width to control token cost and that a vision-capable client is required.

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 very concise (two sentences) yet packs in purpose, sibling comparison, usage scenario, parameter guidance, and client requirement. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the main purpose, behavioral traits, parameter rationale (partially), return format (image + summary), and system requirement. It lacks detail on graph_name but is otherwise sufficiently complete for usage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters. The description explains the purpose of max_width (to bound rendered pixel width and control token cost) but does not mention graph_name or its semantics or default behavior. Thus, it adds some meaning but is incomplete.

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 the tool renders an Origin graph as an image the model can see, and specifically distinguishes it from origin_export_graph by highlighting that it leaves no file behind. This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope, and differentiates it from a sibling.

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 explicitly says to use it to visually verify a plot and iterate, and contrasts it with origin_export_graph as the alternative for leaving a file behind. Although it does not list explicit non-use cases, the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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