Baatjie Group Operations Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/no destructive flags, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains the error-handling behavior (a table that cannot be counted returns null rather than failing the whole call) and highlights performance characteristics ('cheapest way'). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections (main purpose, usage, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). It is somewhat verbose due to the detailed Returns JSON, but that length is justified since there is no output schema. The opening sentence is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the data returned, provides concrete examples, and covers error handling. The only minor gap is not defining terms like 'brms' or 'angel window', but these are context-specific and the overall description is sufficient for correct selection and 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 fully documents the single parameter 'response_format' with enum and default, so schema coverage is 100%. The description essentially repeats the same information in the Args section and only implicitly adds that 'no args' uses the default. This does not meaningfully exceed the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 provides a comprehensive operational snapshot: row counts across all tanOS tables, sales position against the daily objective, and BDOP day status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like baatjie_query or baatjie_schedule_signal by explicitly framing it as the single-call alternative to a dozen count queries.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool (start of a session or sprint, with examples like 'Where are we?') and notes it replaces about a dozen separate count queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use when a more targeted query is needed, so it lacks full 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.