max

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but for a single-argument pure computation the safety surface is minimal. It does not say what happens with an empty array, non-numeric coercion, or the return shape, which are the only behaviors worth disclosing here.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool pointer. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter pure math tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly and to route multi-step work elsewhere. Only edge-case behavior for degenerate inputs is left unstated.

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 100% with a single 'numbers' array parameter that the schema documents as 'Array of numbers to find the maximum of'. The description's phrasing matches the schema exactly and adds no format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Finds) and resource (maximum value from a list of numbers), which is immediately distinguishable from the min, mean, and median siblings. It also names the sibling it is not (batch_calc), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: multiple operations or chained steps should go to batch_calc. It stops short of stating when this tool is the wrong choice for a single-value case, but the routing guidance is concrete rather than implied.

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