analysis_stats

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden. It discloses that the tool is purely computational and which metrics are produced, which implicitly signals a non-destructive read, but it never states whether stdev/variance are sample or population, how single-element or empty lists behave, or whether input order matters. For a stateless calculator these are minor but real 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 front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the output metrics listed after; no filler or redundancy.

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 the description does not need to explain return formatting, and its metric list is a helpful preview rather than a requirement. Combined with a single trivially typed parameter, the definition is nearly sufficient, with only edge-case behavior left unstated.

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% and there is one required parameter; the phrase 'a list of numbers' restates the schema's array-of-numbers type rather than adding meaning. No constraints are given on minimum length, numeric range, or whether non-finite values are accepted.

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 names a specific operation ('descriptive statistics') and an explicit input domain ('a list of numbers'), then enumerates the exact statistics returned (n, sum, mean, median, min/max, stdev, variance, percentiles). That enumeration separates it clearly from siblings like analysis_correlation, analysis_frequency and analysis_linear_regression, even though no sibling is named.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as analysis_frequency or analysis_linear_regression. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the right pick for summary statistics rather than a distribution or relationship test.

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