count_skills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states a simple read operation ('Get total count'), which is inherently non-destructive, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as performance implications, whether the count includes all skills globally, or how the result is returned. The description is minimal but sufficient for a trivially simple operation.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded, containing no wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose without any filler.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple count operation, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., a bare integer vs. a JSON object), though this is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 the schema covers 100% of its (non-existent) properties. With no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add any parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce confusion.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('skills'), and specifies the result ('total count'). It is concise and unambiguous, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like search_skills and get_skill by focusing specifically on counting rather than retrieving or searching.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it for counting, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer count_skills over search_skills, nor any exclusions or context. This leaves the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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