sort_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 states the basic behavior (sorting numbers) but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid inputs like non-numeric strings), performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the purpose. It efficiently communicates the core action and parameters.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on input format (e.g., string array handling), output expectations, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings. For a sorting tool in a crowded namespace, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ascending or descending order', which clarifies the 'descending' parameter, and implies a 'list of numbers' for the 'numbers' parameter. However, it does not specify that 'numbers' is an array of strings (per schema) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity. Given the low schema coverage, this adds moderate but incomplete value.

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: 'Sort a list of numbers in ascending or descending order.' It specifies the verb ('sort'), resource ('list of numbers'), and direction options. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'digit_sort' or 'rank_numbers', which may have overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest score.

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 this is too vague to help an agent choose between similar tools like 'digit_sort' or 'rank_numbers'. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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