counter_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' but does not disclose potential behavior like handling of nonexistent counters, authorization requirements, or side effects. The description is not misleading but omits edge-case behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 tool is simple with one param and no output schema. The description adequately states what is returned (value and metadata), fulfilling the need for return-value context. It falls short of full completeness by not covering error cases, but for a basic get operation this is a minor gap.

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 100%, as the only parameter (counter_id) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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), the resource (a specific counter), and the result (current value and metadata). It distinguishes itself from siblings like counter_list (all counters) and counter_history (historical values) by specifying 'a specific counter' and 'current value'.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus counter_list or counter_history, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The description is sufficient for a trivial get operation but lacks explicit guidance.

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