open_business_overviewONE widget, two display modes: inline snapshot by default, fullscreen tabs (Cliente 360, Cerrar el día, Reposición de stock, Dashboard de ventas) on demand. Aggregates caja, payments, ventas, reportes, supplier, and customer reads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| defaultTab | No | Optional fullscreen tab to open into. | |
| customerName | No | Optional customer name to pre-search on the Cliente 360 tab. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's statement that it 'Aggregates ... reads' reinforces a safe, non-destructive operation. It adds behavioral context about the widget's two display modes and the default inline snapshot, which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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 one compact sentence that front-loads the key differentiator ('ONE widget, two display modes') and packs the data sources into a trailing list. Every clause adds information; there is no 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?
Given the tool is a read-only view opener with two optional, well-schemaed parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core behavior (inline snapshot vs fullscreen tabs), the available tabs, and the aggregated data sources. It does not discuss return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical for an 'open' widget tool. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could have mentioned alternative tools.
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?
Both parameters (defaultTab and customerName) have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, the description adds context by naming the fullscreen tabs and clarifying that the widget has an inline default and fullscreen modes, which helps interpret the enum values. No additional syntax or format details are needed.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'ONE widget, two display modes: inline snapshot by default, fullscreen tabs ... on demand.' It names the aggregated data sources ('caja, payments, ventas, reportes, supplier, customer reads'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like open_caja_status or query_sales. The resource is the business overview widget with clear display behavior.
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 implies usage when an agent needs a business overview or a consolidated view of multiple operational areas. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the mention of tabs and modes offers clear context for when to invoke it with a specific defaultTab. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as caja_registrar_movimiento vs register_movement, get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, and adjust_stock vs stock_load. The distinctions are not immediately clear from names/descriptions, causing a high risk of misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Spanish (caja_*, emit_invoice, send_whatsapp_*), and uses different patterns (open_*, get_*, query_*, list_*, etc.). Some names like stock_load and bulk_price_update don't follow a clear verb_noun convention.
50 tools is excessive for most contexts, even for a broad ERP-like domain. Many are UI widgets (open_*) that add clutter and could be consolidated, making the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers many core business functions (products, suppliers, customers, sales, invoicing, shipping, cash register, payments, integrations). However, there are noticeable gaps: purchase requests have only create (no list/update/delete), shipments cannot be updated/cancelled, and sales lack direct update/query by ID.