count_queue_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation (count only, no item fetching), and explains scoping behavior via parameters (e.g., queue_name scoping and optional filter). This is sufficient for a read-only count tool.

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: a one-sentence summary, a two-sentence usage note, and a bulleted parameter list. No fluff or redundancy.

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 count tool with an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. It tells the agent when to use it, what it does, and how parameters affect results. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section compensates with clear explanations: folder_name as display name, queue_name scope behavior, and filter_query OData syntax with example. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return the total number') and identifies the resource ('queue items') and scope ('matching the given criteria'). It also distinguishes it from sibling get_queue_items by explicitly stating 'without fetching the items,' making clear this is a counting operation rather than a retrieval one.

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 explicitly instructs to call this before get_queue_items to check volume and decide on batching/pagination, providing a clear when-to-use context. It also mentions health checks as another use case, and differentiates from the sibling by noting it does not fetch items.

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