everything_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns a count rather than paths and operates on indexed entries. It does not mention possible limits or edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the key distinction ('without retrieving their paths') placed prominently. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary metadata.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the one-line description is not enough for confident invocation. It omits the return type and how filtering options interact, and while the purpose is clear, the operational context is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description names none of the six parameters. It does not explain query, kind, path, regex, match_path, or case_sensitive semantics, leaving the agent entirely reliant on parameter names, titles, and defaults. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema 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 states a specific verb ('Count'), a resource ('indexed files/folders'), and an explicit scope qualifier ('without retrieving their paths'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search and list tools that return paths or entries.

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 phrase 'without retrieving their paths' gives a clear reason to use this tool when only a count is needed, implying it should be preferred over the search/list siblings in that scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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