model_histogram

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'show' a histogram, with no detail on side effects, prerequisites, return behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation. The phrase 'for a fitted model' hints at a prerequisite, but it is not explicit. Minimal insight beyond the core purpose.

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, followed by a concise usage note and a single parameter explanation. Every sentence is relevant, and the structure is clear with a dedicated parameter section. No fluff or 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics well. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating prerequisites (e.g., must have an already fitted model) and what the output is (e.g., a plot object or file), but the core context is sufficient for a simple plotting tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a Parameters section explaining inp_path as 'path to the .inp or .pre file with the estimated model.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare string type, fully compensating for the missing schema description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Show the residuals histogram with normal overlay for a fitted model.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from the basic diagnostic module (estimate_and_diagnose / confirm_and_estimate) by emphasizing it is a separate, explicitly requested complement.

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 this is an optional complement to the basic Treadway diagnostic module, names the alternative tools, and states when to request it explicitly: 'when you want to inspect the distributional shape of the residuals.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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