collection_filter_gt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of comparison strictness (>, not >=), output ordering, behavior on an empty result, or what happens with non-numeric input. For a cheap pure utility the risk is low, but the disclosure gap is real.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the multi-line Args block is pure duplication of the input schema and earns no space. Removing it would lose nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained here. However, the description omits basic semantics an agent needs to call it correctly, such as whether the threshold comparison is strict and how an empty match is returned, leaving the definition only minimally viable.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. The Args block merely restates the parameter names and types ('items: List of numbers to filter', 'threshold: The threshold value') without adding format, constraint, or edge-case semantics.

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 and resource: filtering numbers above a threshold. An agent can tell it apart from collection_sort, collection_unique, and the math_* siblings without opening a schema. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but no sibling performs threshold filtering, so ambiguity is low.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative for the inverse operation (there is no matching collection_filter_lt sibling). The caller must infer everything from the one-line purpose.

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