get_envelope_point_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that a point count is returned; it says nothing about error behavior for a missing envelope, required permissions, or whether it works on track vs FX envelopes. The 'Returns' line is the sole behavioral disclosure.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and the docstring-style Args/Returns layout is easy to scan. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions.

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?

With no output schema, the description does cover the return value (an object with a point count), which is genuinely useful. However, the undocumented track_index parameter and absent usage/precondition guidance leave it only minimally complete for a two-parameter tool.

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% and the description documents only one of the two parameters (envelope_name). track_index is completely undescribed in both schema and description, leaving half the input surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the number of points in an envelope.' An agent can distinguish it from sibling get_envelope_points (which returns the points themselves) by the count semantics, though the description never explicitly names that alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether the envelope must exist or be armed), and no routing to alternatives such as get_envelope_points or get_track_envelope. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name.

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