get_outreach_stats

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

Even without annotations, the description reveals meaningful behavioral details: pending sends are excluded from rates, and the tool also returns the current reflection state. This goes beyond simply saying 'get stats' and gives the agent important context about what the values represent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence conveys the result and key exclusions, and the second provides practical guidance on how to use the output. No words are wasted, and every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only-style tool with an output schema available, the description covers the result shape, a critical calculation nuance (pending sends excluded), and the intended downstream use. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about input semantics. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related filler.

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 exactly what the tool does: provides a reply-rate breakdown of the outreach ledger with totals and per-hook_type, per-variant, and per-channel rates. It also clearly distinguishes the resource (outreach stats) and includes a notable behavioral detail (pending sends excluded). This is specific enough to differentiate it from generic siblings like get_stats.

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 explicitly identifies the intended use case: it is the evidence source for the insaight-reflect skill, and agents should cite these counts in proposed memory updates. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or contrast it with alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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