batch_batch_stats

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

The description lists the returned fields but lacks disclosure of side effects, permissions, or any behavioral traits beyond the return values. With no annotations, this is insufficient for a fully transparent description.

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 sentence that starts with the group name [batch] and concisely lists the returned stats. Every word is necessary, and 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?

For a simple stats retrieval tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies the source (last batch_map) and the returned fields. It could mention if the stats are one-time or persist, but overall it is sufficient.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given zero parameters. The baseline of 4 for 0 params applies here.

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 that the tool returns stats from the last batch_map run, specifying the fields: ok, errors, total, elapsed_ms. It distinguishes itself from sibling batch tools by focusing on statistics rather than performing operations.

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 after a batch_map run but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide guidance on alternatives. It could be improved by specifying that it should be called after batch_batch_map to review results.

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