get_vector_count

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the burden. It discloses the operation is a read-only 'get' and indicates the return format (JSON string or status message). However, it doesn't detail potential failures, permission requirements, or performance implications, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 compact and structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, avoiding unnecessary words while conveying the essential information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity of a single optional parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to select and invoke the tool. It clearly states the system-wide vs workspace-specific distinction, and the sibling tools are unrelated so no additional differentiation 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 sole parameter 'slug' is fully explained in the description: optional workspace slug that when provided returns workspace-specific count. Since the schema only defines the parameter without descriptive text, this explanation adds crucial meaning and compensates for 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Get vector count for AnythingLLM', a specific verb and resource, and clarifies scope as system-wide or workspace-specific. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_workspaces or get_system_env, which serve different purposes.

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 explains that using the optional slug returns workspace-specific counts, implying that omitting it returns system-wide counts. This provides clear context for when to invoke with or without the parameter, though it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives relative to sibling tools (which are unrelated).

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