Create histogram scope

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description reveals the internal node chain (GLSL TOP, CHOP sampling, normalisation, choptoSOP → renderTOP) and the output as a Null TOP. It also notes the GPU computation and suitability for previews/bind_to_channel. Minor gap: no mention of failure modes or state changes to input TOPs, but enough operational 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 compact and information-dense: purpose, pipeline, output, and sibling differentiation are packed into four sentences. Each clause contributes value, though the final sentence repeats 'single-scope, working histogram' and 'standalone focused tool' slightly redundantly. Still, overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and only modest annotations, the description provides a high-level architecture, output type, usage context, and explicit alternative. It omits per-parameter edge cases (e.g., informational flags) but those are already in the schema descriptions. The return value (Null TOP) is stated, making the tool understandable in context.

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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 12 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'any TOP', output for previews) but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for or contradict the schema, so a mid-score is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Build a luminance (and optional per-channel RGB) histogram video scope for any TOP.' It then outlines the full GPU-to-CHOP-to-SOP pipeline and output format. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from create_video_scopes by stating it is the single-scope working histogram that create_video_scopes can't render, making it unique among siblings.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: it is for a single histogram scope, while 'for a combined waveform/parade/vectorscope monitor use create_video_scopes.' It also explains the limitation of the alternative (can't render in TD 099), which helps the agent choose correctly. The context is explicit and actionable.

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