count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (counts documents) but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, whether it affects system state, what authentication is needed, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation and examples. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Chinese-only content might limit accessibility for some agents, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 complexity (counting with optional filtering), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (just a number? structured response?), error conditions, performance implications, or how it differs from similar counting operations in the extensive sibling tool list. The examples help but don't provide complete context.

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 description explicitly lists both parameters ('index' and 'query') and provides examples showing their usage. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds significant value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints, format requirements for the query object, or what the optional query parameter actually filters. The examples help but don't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 the tool's purpose as '统计文档数量' (count document quantity), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_count' or 'index_stats' which might also provide counting functionality in different contexts. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including 'cat_count', 'search', and various index operations, there's no indication of when this count tool is appropriate versus other counting methods. The example shows usage but doesn't provide contextual guidance.

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