Count rows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns exact counts but reveals no behavioral details such as whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or has performance implications. It does not mention any side effects or limitations.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word serves a purpose, with 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 is simple (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks additional context such as the return format or specific tables included, which could be helpful. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (none). The description does not need to explain parameters, as there are none. The description adds context about what is counted (main tables), which is clear.

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 provides 'exact row counts for the main DevVault tables,' which identifies the specific verb ('count') and resource ('main DevVault tables'). It is not a tautology and differentiates from siblings like run_query or db_info, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for getting table sizes, but does not specify when to use this over run_query or db_info. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, making it less explicit than ideal.

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