get_track_num_sends

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and clearly indicates a non-mutating query. It does not add extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as what exactly counts as a send or whether the result is a simple integer.

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 focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core operation.

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 simple read-only getter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks parameter clarification and does not explicitly state the return type or counting semantics, which would be more important because there is no output schema.

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 must compensate for the undocumented track_index parameter. It only says 'from a track' and does not clarify whether track_index is zero-based, how to resolve invalid indices, or what value range is expected.

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 specific verb and resource: getting the number of sends from a track. It is immediately distinguishable from mutation siblings like create_send, delete_send, and set_send_volume, and from count tools like get_track_count.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: call this when you need the send count for a track. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this over alternatives, nor any mention of indexing conventions or prerequisites.

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