assert_com_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully signals that the query is read-only and that it must return a single row, but says nothing about failure semantics (does a false assertion raise?), the auth implications of the user/password parameters, or timeout behavior for a host-side COM call.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the usage condition and the input contract. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the core query/op semantics are covered. However, for a 9-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the absence of any failure-mode or auth/timeout guidance leaves meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and does so partially: it clarifies that `query` must return one row whose first value (or `count_field`) is numeric, that `op` accepts eq/ne/gt/lt/ge/le, and implies `expected`. It leaves infobase_path, user, password, prog_id, and timeout_sec unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (assert) and a precise resource (a numeric result from a read-only host-side COM query), and the condition 'file infobases where OData is not published' contextually separates it from the OData-based assertion siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally 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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: reach for this on file infobases where OData is not published, which routes the agent correctly away from OData-based assertions. It offers no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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