count_tendencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavioral output—rates for swing, whiff, and contact—and implies a read-style analytical operation. However, it does not explain behavior when team is null, aggregation scope, or any other side-effect or data-freshness details.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the key output metrics are front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is so short that it misses opportunities to convey usage and parameter context.

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 one-parameter query tool, the description gives enough to understand the general purpose and expected output. But without an output schema, it does not describe the return structure, count categories, or behavior when team is omitted, and it does not help an agent choose between closely related sibling stats 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely refers to 'a team's hitters' without explaining the team parameter's format, allowed values, or null behavior. Since there is a single optional team parameter, the schema provides the type and default, but the description adds essentially no semantic value beyond the property name.

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 identifies what the tool reports: swing, whiff, and contact rates by count for a team's hitters. It is not a tautology and gives a concrete subject and metric set, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like team_batting or hitter_profile.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, and no mention of when not to use it. The description does not name any sibling tool or condition that would select count_tendencies over team_batting or platoon_splits.

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