scan_bulk_preview_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not queue anything, a key behavioral trait, and explains the scanned_before semantics (matches targets scanned before date or never scanned). It implies non-destructive behavior via 'counting' and 'without queuing', though it doesn't explicitly state all side effects. Still, it provides meaningful behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('Count how many targets match... without queuing anything') and then providing targeted parameter detail. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the usage and one parameter, but omits details on the other two parameters, the return type/format, any constraints, or potential errors. An agent would need additional information to confidently invoke it correctly, especially regarding the boolean flags and expected output.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains 'scanned_before' with an example and semantics, but does not explain 'only_roots' or 'online_only'. These boolean flags are not self-explanatory in context (what constitutes 'roots' or 'online'?), leaving the agent with ambiguous meaning. The description compensates only partially for the missing schema descriptions.

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 counts matching targets without queuing, using a specific verb (count) and resource (targets), and explicitly distinguishes itself from scan_bulk_by_criteria by noting it should be used before that tool. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use before scan_bulk_by_criteria to see the blast radius first.' It identifies the primary alternative and the condition for its use. It does not enumerate all alternatives, but the main one is covered, and the context is clear.

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