minimum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool finds the smaller number but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or whether it returns a single value or additional metadata. For a simple comparison tool, this is minimal but adequate.

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: one clear sentence stating the tool's purpose, followed by domain/category in parentheses. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple 2-parameter comparison tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or usage context. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but leaves gaps an agent might need to infer.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: it clarifies that parameters 'a' and 'b' are numbers to compare. However, it doesn't specify numeric types (integer vs float), ranges, or special cases (e.g., NaN, infinity). Given the simple schema, this provides basic compensation but lacks depth.

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 smaller of two numbers.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('two numbers'), and domain/category context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'minimum' vs 'min_list' or 'clamp', which have similar comparison purposes but different scopes.

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. While it mentions domain (arithmetic) and category (comparison), it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose this over similar sibling tools like 'minimum' vs 'min_list' (which handles lists) or 'clamp' (which bounds values).

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