range_value

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 calculation (range) but does not describe error handling (e.g., for empty lists or non-numeric strings), performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic operation.

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: the first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and the second adds domain/category context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted verbiage.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics (string handling), behavioral traits (error cases), and output expectations. While concise, it does not provide enough context for reliable agent use without additional assumptions.

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 description implies the parameter is a 'list of numbers', which aligns with the input schema's 'numbers' array of strings. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not clarify that the array items are strings (not numbers) or provide any formatting details (e.g., numeric parsing, delimiter usage). It adds minimal value beyond what the schema structure indicates.

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: 'Calculate the range (difference between maximum and minimum) of a list of numbers.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('range'), and input type ('list of numbers'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'max_list' or 'min_list', which are related but distinct operations.

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 the domain ('statistics') and category ('general'), but this is too vague to help an agent choose between this and sibling tools like 'max_list', 'min_list', or 'comprehensive_stats'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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