run_lhe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful fact that omitted parameters use PixInsight defaults, but it does not state whether the view is modified in place, whether a new view is created, whether undo or a preview is involved, or any other side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Every sentence 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 six-parameter process tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus the complete schema is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it omits behavioral context such as in-place mutation, output behavior, or prerequisites, so it is not fully complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's default-value note adds a useful behavioral hint but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('LocalHistogramEqualization'), and the target ('a view'), with a clarifying parenthetical. This makes it clearly distinct from the many generic run_* sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the process name: an agent should call this when local histogram equalization is requested on a view. The description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools or provide exclusions, but it does add the practical note that omitted parameters fall back to PixInsight defaults.

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