set_axis_range

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

The description only states what the tool does (set axis range) and returns a success message. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any side effects, requirements, or error conditions.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by an Args list and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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 description covers the essential aspects for a simple setter tool. The output schema exists (not shown), so a 'Success message' return is likely sufficient. However, it does not mention edge cases like non-existent graph_name or invalid ranges.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'x_min: X axis minimum (None=auto)'). This clarifies that None means auto-scaling, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 'Set axis range for a graph', which is a specific verb+resource. It lists the parameters and their meanings, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_axis_scale. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_axis_scale or set_axis_labels. There is no context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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