range_stat

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but for a deterministic pure-function statistic the bar is inherently low. It does not disclose edge-case behavior (empty array, single element, NaN handling) or confirm the operation is stateless and side-effect free, leaving modest gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero waste, front-loading the operation and its exact formula. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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, deterministic arithmetic tool with an output schema present, the definition supplies everything needed to call it correctly. Return-value explanation is unnecessary given the output schema, and the remaining edge-case silence is minor for this tool class.

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; 'of a dataset' loosely signals that the numbers parameter is the input set. Combined with the schema's array-of-number typing, this is minimally adequate, though it adds no format, ordering, or constraint detail beyond 'max - min' 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Calculate), the resource (range of a dataset), and even spells out the formula (max - min), which lets an agent distinguish it from adjacent statistics siblings like iqr or variance. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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 guidance on when to prefer range over siblings such as iqr, stddev, or min_value/max_value, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and formula.

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