channel_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns a total count, which is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation. No mention of performance or permissions, but the operation is straightforward.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete regarding the core function, but lacks parameter explanation. The sibling tools provide context, but the description could be more precise about the parameter.

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 schema has one boolean parameter 'global_count' with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'global' in parentheses, implying the parameter controls scope, but does not clarify the meaning when set to false or its effect. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics.

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 it returns total channel count, with the clarification 'global = across all groups', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on individual channels or return lists.

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 implies usage for getting the global count, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for aggregate count.

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