aggregate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the operation without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric result), error handling, performance implications, or side effects (e.g., file reading). This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., a numeric aggregate), file format support beyond what's in the schema, or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'filePath' and 'operation' with enum values. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, merely restating 'aggregation operations on a column'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Perform aggregation operations on a column' states the basic action but is vague about the context (data files) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'bulk_aggregate_multi_files' or 'statistical_analysis'. It specifies the target ('a column') but lacks detail on the resource (CSV/Excel files mentioned only in 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bulk_aggregate_multi_files' for multiple files or 'statistical_analysis' for broader operations. The description implies usage for column aggregation but offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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