Quality Profile Usage

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic counting function. It does not mention read-only behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The description fails to provide sufficient transparency for an agent to understand the operational context.

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. However, it sacrifices necessary information for brevity. While it is front-loaded, it lacks details that could be provided in a slightly longer description without losing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, many siblings, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention pagination, filtering, grouping, or the expected output format. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 input schema has 11 parameters with zero description coverage (0%). The tool's description adds no explanation for any parameter. An agent has no guidance on how to use parameters like 'app', 'from', 'to', 'page', 'limit', 'groupBy', etc. This is a critical gap.

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 'Count library items per quality profile' clearly states the action (count), resource (library items), and grouping (per quality profile). However, it does not differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like 'library_profile_usage' or 'quality_distribution', which could overlap in functionality.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'library_profile_usage' or 'quality_distribution'. An agent has no context on choosing this tool over its many siblings.

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