count-tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns a 'precise count' but does not specify whether duplicates are counted, how invalid UUIDs are handled, or if the operation has side effects. The description is basic and omits important details for full transparency.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary wording. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the input and return value. It could mention edge cases (empty array, invalid UUIDs), but is sufficient for basic usage.

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 100% with descriptions for both the array and its items. The description adds no significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for a well-documented schema.

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 items by accepting UUIDs. It specifies the verb 'count' and resource 'items by UUIDs', distinguishing it from siblings like search-tool which return data rather than counts.

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 tells the agent to use this tool when needing a count of UUID-identified items, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings.

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