range

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 states the calculation (max-min) but doesn't cover edge cases (e.g., empty arrays, non-numeric elements), error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 the complexity (a simple mathematical tool), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and output, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. The description alone doesn't provide enough context for reliable tool invocation.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't add any parameter details. It mentions '数组' (array) but doesn't specify element types (e.g., numbers), constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly defined.

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's purpose: '计算数组的范围（最大值-最小值）' (calculates the range of an array: maximum minus minimum). It specifies the verb '计算' (calculate) and the resource '数组的范围' (array's range), making it distinct from siblings like 'max', 'min', or 'variance'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'stdDev' or other statistical functions, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like statistical analysis, data preprocessing, or comparisons with siblings such as 'variance' or 'stdDev'. Without any context on usage, the agent must infer based on the name and description alone.

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