count_in_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not return a running total, that instances are boxed and lifted for de-duplication, and that there is a 'sufficient' flag that controls further actions. It doesn't explicitly state side effects or read-only nature but the de-duplication behavior is a meaningful 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?

The description is a single paragraph with several sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information: the scope, the de-duplication mechanism, the sufficient flag handling, and the follow-up tool. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and not unnecessarily verbose.

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?

While an output schema exists (not visible here), the description does not explain what 'sufficient' is, what the return structure is, or what the parameters mean. It references 'next_view' and 'commit_count' but these are sibling tools that may or may not be self-explanatory. Missing parameter semantics leaves the agent guessing.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters (anchor, target, question). It references 'anchor' in passing ('ground the anchor') but never defines it, and does not clarify what 'matching' refers to or what 'target'/'question' mean. The agent must rely on the schema alone, which has no descriptions.

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 immediately states the core action: 'Count matching instances from the current vantage point only.' This is a specific verb with a clear resource scope, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like commit_count (which publishes) and get_view (which just retrieves).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it tells the agent to call this for counting in the current view, warns not to add previous looks, and instructs to call commit_count after done. It also gives a conditional instruction for what to do if 'sufficient is false' (drive or ground). This is strong usage routing.

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