pfc_capture_plot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool saves the image to output_path and returns it for visual inspection, handles plot setup, camera, coloring, and export internally, and implies it's a read-only visualization tool (since it captures and returns an image without mentioning data modification). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like file system changes or performance impacts, leaving some gaps for a tool with 23 parameters.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines and behavioral context in subsequent sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second provides critical usage rules, and the third explains internal handling. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient 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 complexity (23 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for guiding usage and purpose. It covers the tool's role in visualization, contrasts with siblings, and hints at internal processing. However, it lacks details on return values (beyond 'returned for visual inspection'), error handling, or dependencies, which could be important for such a parameter-rich tool, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is low at 35%, but the description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions 'output_path' as where the image is saved, but doesn't explain other parameters like 'ball_color_by' or 'center' in the description text. The description compensates slightly by implying the tool handles complex plot setup, but doesn't detail how parameters relate to that setup, resulting in a baseline score due to inadequate compensation for the coverage gap.

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 specific action ('Capture a PFC plot image') and resource ('PFC plot'), distinguishing it from siblings like pfc_execute_task by emphasizing it handles plot visualization internally rather than manual command execution. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool pfc_execute_task, making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('ALWAYS use this tool for plot visualization') and when not to ('Do NOT write PFC plot commands manually via pfc_execute_task'), with a clear alternative named (pfc_execute_task) and reasoning (complex and error-prone syntax). This gives the agent precise context for tool selection.

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