rank_numbers

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it handles ties appropriately and uses 1-based indexing. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., for non-numeric strings in the input array), performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate but incomplete disclosure.

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: a single sentence that directly states the tool's function, followed by parenthetical domain/category notes. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (ranking with tie-handling), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the output format (e.g., whether it returns an array of ranks), error conditions, and examples. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'numbers' of type array of strings. The description adds minimal semantics: it implies the list contains numbers (though the schema uses strings) and that they will be sorted. It does not explain the expected format of the strings (e.g., numeric strings), handling of invalid inputs, or any constraints. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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: 'Get the rank (1-based position) of each number in a list when sorted. Handles ties appropriately.' It specifies the verb ('Get the rank'), resource ('each number in a list'), and scope ('when sorted'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sort_numbers' or 'percentile', which perform 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 ('arithmetic') and category ('comparison'), but these are too broad to help an agent choose between this and siblings like 'sort_numbers' (which sorts but doesn't rank) or 'percentile' (which calculates percentiles). 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.