platoon_splits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key data-quality trait: 'vs-LHP samples are small and flagged accordingly.' However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though implied), any rate limits, or how the output is structured. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds relevant data-quality context. However, it could have used the space more effectively to describe parameters, but it is not verbose or redundant.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. It doesn't explain what 'line' means (e.g., batting average, OPS), what 'flagged' entails, or how team filtering works. An agent would lack essential details to call the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters 'team' or 'min_pa'. The tool's purpose is clear, but an agent cannot infer what these parameters control or how they affect the results. The description does not compensate for the schema gap at all.

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 function: 'Each hitter's line against left- and right-handed pitching' – a specific verb and resource. It also adds context ('computed locally from the play stream') that hints at its distinctiveness, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like team_batting or hitter_profile. This is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention specific use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where platoon splits would be preferred over other hitting stats. The only contextual hint is that left-handed pitching is rare, but that is a data-quality note, not a usage directive.

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