max_list

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 states the tool finds the maximum value but does not mention how it handles edge cases (e.g., empty lists, non-numeric strings in the array), performance characteristics, or error behavior. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Find the maximum value in a list of numbers.' The additional domain and category information is brief and does not detract from clarity. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It states the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter handling, edge cases, or output format. For a tool with undocumented parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient to ensure reliable use by an AI agent.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('numbers') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any parameter-specific information. It does not explain what format the numbers should be in (e.g., as strings in the array), whether they must be numeric, or any constraints. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find the maximum value in a list of numbers.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('maximum value in a list of numbers'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'maximum' or 'max_float', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Domain: arithmetic, Category: comparison,' but this is generic and does not help distinguish it from sibling tools like 'maximum' or 'max_float'. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, limitations, or when to choose this tool over others.

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