Custom Format Hits

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'count matched', but does not specify if the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or if it supports pagination. The behavior beyond counting is opaque.

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, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it less helpful.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, filtering, grouping, or pagination, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 details about any of the 11 parameters. Parameters like 'app', 'to', 'from', 'detail', 'fields', 'groupBy' remain unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their meanings.

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 states the verb 'count' and resource 'matched custom formats in library files', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling 'custom_format_misses' which would count unmatched. However, it could be more explicit about what qualifies as a 'hit'.

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 'custom_format_misses' or other custom format tools. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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