get_envelope_point_count

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' wording is consistent with that. The description adds a small behavioral note that it returns 'an Object with point count,' but it doesn't disclose anything beyond what the annotation and tool name already imply. No contradiction, but no meaningful added transparency either.

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 front-loaded with its one-line purpose. The Args/Returns docstring format is lightweight. However, the Args section is misleadingly incomplete (it lists one of two parameters), which slightly detracts from otherwise lean structure.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should at minimum document both parameters. It documents only envelope_name and omits track_index entirely, leaving the agent unable to correctly construct a call. The simple read operation and existing annotation lower the bar, but the missing required parameter is a significant completeness failure.

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 carries the full burden of documenting parameters. It only documents envelope_name, which is near-tautological ('Envelope name'), and completely omits the required track_index parameter. An agent cannot know what track_index refers to or how to supply it, which is a critical gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get the number of points in an envelope.' This distinguishes it from sibling get_envelope_points (which returns the points themselves) and the mutating add/delete/clear envelope tools. However, it does not name or reference any sibling for explicit differentiation, so it's clear but lacks the explicit contrast that would earn a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_envelope_points, get_fx_envelope_points, or get_track_envelope. The description provides no contextual triggers, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over its many envelope-related siblings.

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