debug_histogram_query

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 the tool's debug purpose but gives no details about side effects, permissions, or what the tool actually returns (e.g., count, boolean, raw messages). This is a significant gap for a tool that executes queries.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core idea in minimal space.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify return values or behavior. It states the purpose but does not explain what 'finds messages' means (e.g., output structure, success criteria). This is adequate for a simple debug helper but leaves some ambiguity.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it is a 'Debug helper to test if the histogram query finds any messages at all,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_log_histogram by focusing on debugging empty histogram buckets.

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 'Use this if histogram returns empty buckets,' providing a clear condition for when to use the tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well-defined.

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