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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of explaining input, output, and edge cases. It only restates the computation and does not disclose how the array is provided, what format the result takes, or behavior for empty arrays.

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 short and front-loaded with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It qualifies as concise rather than verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential operational details.

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 an empty schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not sufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly. The key missing piece is how the input array is passed, especially since the schema declares no properties.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, but the description mentions 'an array' without clarifying how that array is supplied. It adds some conceptual meaning, but not enough to resolve the invocation mismatch between description and empty schema.

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 the operation: computing the cumulative minimum of an array. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like cumulative-max and cumulative-sum, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rolling-min, cumulative-max, or cumulative-sum. The description implies a mathematical utility, but does not state when it is the right choice.

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