get_message_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral detail that it counts all messages in Send folders, implying a read-only aggregation. However, it does not disclose whether permissions are required, the response format, or any edge cases that might affect the count.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds a clarifying clause. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple counter with two optional filters, the description fully conveys the tool's scope and behavior. It does not explain the return format, but given the tool name and the nature of a count operation, the return value is self-evident. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 100% coverage, with both connectorId and workspaceId clearly described. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning, justifying the baseline score.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'unsent messages count for connectors,' further elaborating with 'counts all messages in Send folders.' This distinguishes it from sibling count tools like get_transactions_count and get_requests_count by focusing on the message domain.

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 the tool is for retrieving unsent message counts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is limited to the tool's direct purpose.

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