min_max

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the result includes min, max, and count, which is beyond what a bare schema shows, but it says nothing about behavior when the expression matches zero values, matches non-numeric values, or when the alias is unknown.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args section; nothing is padded. The Returns block is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is small.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return explanation is not needed, and the remaining gap is edge-case behavior for empty or non-numeric match sets. With no annotations, that omission leaves an agent uncertain how to interpret a zero-count result.

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 must compensate, and it does: alias is identified as the alias of a loaded document and expression as a JSONPath resolving to numbers. The only gap is that it does not say how non-numeric matches are treated.

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?

States a specific verb (get) plus the exact aggregate (minimum and maximum) over a specific resource (numeric values matched by a JSONPath expression). This cleanly separates it from siblings like sum_values, count, value_counts, and unique_values.

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 only implied: the args block reveals you need a loaded document alias and a JSONPath resolving to numbers. There is no explicit guidance on when to pick min_max over sum_values/count, nor any note about preconditions such as loading the document first.

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