get_dyn_notch_count

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

Despite no annotations, the description adds value by explaining the meaning of the returned number (independently tracked dynamic notches), its default (3), and the effect of different values. It implies this is a read-only retrieval with no side effects, which is appropriate for a getter. However, it does not explicitly state behavioral traits like idempotency or network dependency.

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 very concise, using two sentences and a numbered bullet list. Every sentence adds value: it defines the parameter, explains the default, and gives tuning guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool returns, its default, and provides tuning context. No missing information for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the return value's semantics, default, and recommended values. This goes well beyond the empty 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 clearly states 'Get dyn_notch_count: Number of independently tracked dynamic notches.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'dyn_notch_count' are explicitly identified, and the purpose is unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling setter tool 'set_dyn_notch_count' by being a getter operation.

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 excellent guidance on interpreting the returned value (recommending counts based on RPM filtering), but it does not explicitly state when to call this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other get_dyn_notch_* tools or the setter). The usage context for the tool itself is implied but not explicitly spelled out.

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