get_vault_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a safe read operation ('Get') and notes optional filtering, but doesn't disclose return format, error handling, or behavior with invalid filters. For a simple count tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core function and optional filtering without any fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states the purpose and the filtering capability. It doesn't explain the return value, but 'count' inherently implies a numeric result, so no further details are necessary.

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 schema covers the filter parameter with a clear OData expression description and example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 returns the total count of vault entries, with optional filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vault_entries (which returns entries) and get_vault_entry (which returns a specific entry), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need a count rather than the entries themselves, and optionally filter the count. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'count' phrasing implies a different use case from listing or searching.

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