get_file_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a total count, but does not disclose traits like performance, accuracy, whether the count is real-time, or if it includes hidden files. The output schema exists but is not considered in this dimension. The description is minimally acceptable for a simple count, but lacks depth.

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 with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could provide additional context, such as noting it is a quick alternative to listing files or mentioning any limitations (e.g., counts only files the user has access to). Despite this, it sufficiently explains the tool's purpose.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to the baseline rule for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to add parameter semantics. No additional explanation is required.

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 action (get) and the resource (total number of Plaud files), distinguishing it from siblings like get_files (which retrieves file details) and search_transcripts (which searches transcripts). It uses a specific verb and resource, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 such as get_files or search_transcripts. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit context.

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