operations_size

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral traits: a potentially long-running operation, the requirement to set _async for long runs, immediate jobid return, and polling via job_status. It does not state read-only status, but 'Count remote size' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences: the first leads with the purpose and output metrics, the second presents the critical async guidance. Every sentence is informative and the format is front-loaded.

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 size-counting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the async path, and the polling mechanism. It lacks an explicit return-value breakdown or error cases, but is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers all parameters, but the description adds important semantics by mandating _async for long-running cases and clarifying the background-execution behavior. It also reinforces that fs denotes the remote to measure, though _group is only covered by the schema.

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 'Count remote size' and specifies the exact outputs: total size, file count, and number of objects without size metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling file-operation tools like operations_mkdir or operations_deletefile.

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 clearly frames the tool as a remote-size reporting operation and provides important operational context through the async execution note. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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