local_contrastEnhance local contrast in astrophotography images using non-linear local histogram equalization. Adjust radius and amount to reveal faint details while controlling slope limit.
LocalHistogramEqualization (non-linear). Checkpoints first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| amount | No | ||
| radius | No | ||
| checkpoint | No | Write an .xisf checkpoint before running (default true) | |
| slope_limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation already marks the tool as destructive, and the description adds a practical safety-related instruction to checkpoint first. It does not contradict the annotations, but it gives little additional behavioral detail about what the equalization actually changes or how it affects the image.
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 extremely short, front-loads the core algorithm, and includes the operational warning 'Checkpoints first' without wasted words. It is more terse than ideal, but every part earns its place.
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 destructive image-processing tool with five parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It conveys the algorithm and a checkpoint prerequisite, but omits parameter semantics, expected effects, and any guidance on selecting or invoking the operation correctly.
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 only 20%: only 'checkpoint' is documented. The description does not explain the meaning, units, defaults, or relationships of 'amount', 'radius', or 'slope_limit', so it fails to compensate for the schema's low coverage. This leaves an agent with little semantic grounding for the key adjustment parameters.
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 identifies the operation as LocalHistogramEqualization and notes it is non-linear, which clearly signals local-contrast enhancement through histogram equalization. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like local_normalization, but the intent is not vague or tautological.
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 instruction 'Checkpoints first' provides a clear procedural prerequisite, which is useful for a destructive operation. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as local_normalization, curves, or stretch, so the when-to-use context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.