aggregate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the core behavior of read-only aggregation and mentions common operations like count/sum/group-by, but it does not disclose limitations, edge cases, side effects, or behavior around filter and agg_column.

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 in the first sentence and a useful example following immediately. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The output schema provides return-type context, and the example supports basic usage, but the tool is not fully described for all five parameters. Missing semantics for filter and agg_column leave meaningful gaps for an agent trying to use sum or filtered aggregations.

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 for parameter meaning. The example clarifies table, group_by, and agg, but filter and agg_column are left unexplained, including the crucial relationship between agg_column and agg for sum queries. This is only partial compensation for undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool performs simplified aggregation on a DuckDB table, with a concrete example showing count/group-by usage. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as query_tables beyond the vague 'Easier than SQL' comparison.

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 phrase 'Easier than SQL for common count/sum/group-by queries' implies when to use the tool, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage guidance is present but only implied rather than explicit.

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