count_schemas

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool counts schemas, but not whether it counts versions as separate entries, whether the returned value is a simple integer, whether both context and registry can be counted at once, or what the default behavior is when both parameters are null. For a read-style counting tool this is minimal but incomplete.

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, short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately states the scope. Every word earns its place, and nothing extra is included.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description under-specifies the calling contract. The main missing piece is how to choose and combine the context and registry parameters, especially given the ambiguity of 'or'. The description is adequate for knowing the tool's purpose but not fully adequate for confidently invoking it with correct arguments.

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 two entirely undocumented parameters. It does name 'context' and 'registry' as the scoping dimensions, which is helpful, but it does not clarify their format, their null defaults, whether they are alternatives or combinable, or any precedence. The bare phrase 'context or registry' gives only weak semantic signal.

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 ('count'), a resource ('schemas'), and a scope ('in a context or registry'). It distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like count_contexts and count_schema_versions by specifying 'schemas' rather than contexts or versions. It could be sharper about what 'registry' means in this tool versus the registry-focused sibling tools, but the core action is clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of count_schema_versions, count_contexts, or the registry/subject listing tools. The description also never explains whether 'context' and 'registry' are mutually exclusive options, whether one is preferred, or what happens if both are supplied. An agent cannot confidently decide between this and its close siblings from the description alone.

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