get_histogram_result

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility and delivers thoroughly: it explains raw always present, parsed stats keys, base-unit conversion, _unit keys, warnings behavior, and the disabled-histogram case where raw is empty. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then return-value semantics, then usage guidance. Despite being detailed, it remains tightly structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and edge cases itself, and it does so completely: raw format, stats fields, unit handling, warnings, disabled behavior, and operational prerequisites. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies; the description instead adds value by explaining what the read operation returns.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the histogram statistics.' The tool name and sibling list confirm this is the getter for histogram results, and the description's detailed focus on histogram data clearly separates it from other getters.

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?

Clearly states prerequisites: 'Enable the histogram with configure_histogram first' and advises stopping acquisition for a stable snapshot. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative read tools, but the usage context is concrete and actionable.

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