min

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is understood as safe and deterministic. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., handling of NaN or negative infinity), but it does not contradict annotations. A score of 3 reflects that the description provides minimal extra value beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and wastes no space, earning top marks for conciseness.

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 simple numeric function like 'min', the description might be considered minimally adequate. However, it lacks coverage of edge cases (e.g., empty array, non-number items) and does not reference the output. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, a score of 3 is reasonable but not higher due to incomplete coverage.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's semantics. However, 'Minimum of numbers' only restates the parameter type (numbers array) without clarifying constraints like non-empty requirement, value range, or behavior with unsorted input. This provides little beyond the bare schema.

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 'Minimum of numbers' clearly states the tool's function: computing the minimum of a set of numbers. It uses a specific verb (minimum) and resource (numbers), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'max' (maximum) or 'sum'.

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 vs alternatives, such as when to choose 'min' over 'max' or 'range'. No context about prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., empty arrays) is given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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