object_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Systematically' and 'with verification' hint at a careful approach but do not explain what verification entails, how uncategorized items are handled, or what the output structure looks like. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 wasted words. It is concise and to the point, though the phrase 'with verification' is vague and could be seen as padding. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not cover important context such as how counting handles non-matching items, whether the tool returns counts as numbers or strings, or how to use the result in a broader workflow. The tool has only two simple params, but even so, more behavioral context is needed.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('items' and 'target_category'), and the coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal semantic value, merely paraphrasing the category concept. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 tool's function: systematically count objects by category. The verb 'count' and resource 'objects' are specific, and the category parameter aligns with the described purpose. It is distinct enough from siblings like boolean_evaluate and date_calculate, though 'with verification' adds some ambiguity.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as systematic_verify. The usage context is only implied by the description.

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