Get network counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as whether the count is live or cached, or error handling if the environment is invalid.

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 of 7 words, extremely concise with no wasted words. While it is brief, it efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what the returned counts represent (e.g., structure or type of counts). It does not, leaving the agent unsure about the response format. Given the simplicity (1 param, annotations present), the description is still incomplete.

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 parameter 'environmentId', which is self-explanatory. The description does not add additional meaning, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool name and title clearly indicate it retrieves counts for a network, and the description specifies it operates on an environment. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'arcane_network_list' and 'arcane_network_get' because it focuses on counts. However, the description does not specify what kind of counts are returned (e.g., number of containers, number of networks), leaving 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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'arcane_container_get_counts' and 'arcane_image_get_counts', but no context to choose among them. No prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases are mentioned.

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