spss_chart_histogram

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool exports a file and returns the path, which is essential. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as an active dataset or the data_file parameter's role, nor any resource implications, though the core export behavior is disclosed.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Each clause adds value, and although the technical detail 'GGRAPH + OMS IMAGE' is somewhat niche, it is not filler.

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 has 9 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of optional parameters or how data_file relates to the active dataset. The output schema covers return value structure, but the agent still lacks sufficient context to correctly use all parameters or choose this over the density variant.

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. It explains the continuous variable requirement and the image format enum (PNG/TIFF/EMF), but the remaining 7 parameters (dpi, title, labels, dimensions, data_file) are left to an underscriptive schema. This partial coverage is insufficient for fully understanding how to invoke the tool.

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 that the tool exports a publication-ready histogram and returns a file path, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling spss_chart_histogram_density tool, so it is clear but lacks explicit distinction.

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 a basic usage requirement ('Provide the continuous variable') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent without enough context to choose among many chart siblings.

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