call_histogram

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds that scanning a full large trace is slow and that `limit` caps how many calls are read (default 200k), which is useful behavioral/performance context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences: the first states the core purpose and value, the second gives the key performance caveat. Every sentence adds information and there is no 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?

For a tool with four parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is not complete: it omits the meaning of `top` and `calls`, and does not explain the required `trace` format. The presence of an output schema helps for return values, but the input semantics remain underspecified.

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 carries the burden. It explains `limit`'s purpose and default but leaves `top`, `calls`, and `trace` undefined; only the phrase 'call range' hints at `trace`/`calls`. With one of four parameters meaningfully documented, this is partial compensation at best.

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?

Describes the output as a function-frequency profile over a call range and positions it as the fastest high-level view of a game's behavior. The verb is implicit rather than explicit ('Returns/Computes'), and it doesn't name sibling tools like get_calls or search_calls to distinguish them, but the histogram concept is specific enough to separate it from raw-call 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?

The phrase 'fastest way to see what a game does' gives a clear context for when the histogram is appropriate (high-level overview), and the limit warning addresses performance tradeoffs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to a sibling alternative for raw call data, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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