get_attack_surface_issue_counts_by_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get ... counts' implies a read-only, non-mutating aggregation, which is adequate for a low-risk counting tool, but no permissions, rate limits, or result shape are disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, grouping, and scope with zero 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 one-parameter read-only aggregation with no output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. It could be marginally better by hinting at what 'class' values exist (cf. list_attack_surface_issue_types), but nothing essential is missing.

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% for the single account_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The phrase 'for a Cloudflare account' lightly reinforces the account scope but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (Get), resource (Security Center attack-surface issue counts), and scope (grouped by class, for a Cloudflare account). The 'by class' grouping cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_attack_surface_issue_counts_by_severity and get_attack_surface_issue_counts_by_type.

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?

Usage is implied by the grouping dimension rather than stated. The description never says when to prefer this over the by_severity or by_type siblings, nor does it note any prerequisite beyond the account ID, leaving routing to inference.

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