request_count

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only restates that matching entries are counted. It does not explain whether matching is exact, fuzzy, or based on WireMock request patterns, nor what happens when no matches are found.

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 concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the conciseness sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

Given the nested criteria object, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides insufficient context. It fails to explain the return value, criteria format, or how this tool fits into the broader request journal workflow.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the 'criteria' parameter. The schema shows an object but gives no hint about its structure or how it relates to a WireMock request pattern, leaving the agent to guess.

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 uses a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('request journal entries') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like request_list and request_get by focusing on counting rather than retrieving entries.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like request_list or request_unmatched. There is no mention of criteria semantics, prerequisites, or scenarios where counting is preferred.

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