plot_histogram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'render' which implies visual output, but doesn't disclose what format the output takes (image, HTML, etc.), whether it's interactive, or any performance characteristics. The 'simple flat parameters' note is helpful but insufficient for behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example is helpful but could be more concise. The 'simple flat parameters' note is valuable context. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 1 parameter (a nested object with 9 sub-properties), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and shows a partial example, but doesn't explain all parameters, behavioral traits, or usage context relative to siblings. The output schema reduces burden but doesn't compensate for missing parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The example shows values, bins, and title parameters, providing some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain the other 7 parameters (width, height, density, color, x_label, y_label) or their purposes. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema 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 tool renders a 1D histogram, which is a specific verb (render) and resource (histogram). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying '1D' and 'histogram', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other plot types like plot_bar or plot_box. The 'simple flat parameters' note adds useful context about the input structure.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 8 sibling plot tools. There's no mention of when a histogram is appropriate versus bar charts, box plots, scatter plots, etc. The example shows usage but doesn't explain context or alternatives.

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