Open Scientific Figure Library

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral nuance that opening the workbench does not involve searching, which is a usage hint rather than a new safety trait. It does not add significant behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 sentence that conveys both purpose and usage context without any filler. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Open the template workbench') and then clarifies the condition. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely sufficient. It explains the primary purpose and the key condition for use. However, it could be slightly more complete by elaborating what 'template workbench' refers to or what 'plotting intent' means, but within the context of the sibling tools, it is adequately 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the action rather than parameters, and there is no need to explain parameter semantics since none exist. The schema confirms an empty object, and the description adds no conflicting information.

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's function: 'Open the template workbench.' It further specifies the context ('when no plotting intent exists'), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools. This is a specific verb+resource with scope, clearly separating it from the family.

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 indicates when to use this tool: when there is no plotting intent, implying you should not use search. It names the alternative indirectly ('inventing a search'), which is clear but not as explicit as naming the exact sibling tool. Could be improved by directly saying 'use figure_library_search when plotting intent exists.'

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