sentinel_analytics_rule_templates_count_by_tactic

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 only states the purpose without any information on permissions required, rate limits, side effects, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate as it fails to describe how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details.

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 complexity of a counting operation with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and expected results, making it insufficient for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 one parameter ('kwargs') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention parameters at all. This leaves the parameter undocumented in both schema and description, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. The agent has no guidance on what 'kwargs' should contain or how to use it.

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 ('Count') and the resource ('Sentinel analytics rule templates by tactic'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'sentinel_analytics_rule_templates_count_by_technique' or 'sentinel_analytics_rules_count_by_tactic', which have similar naming patterns but target different scopes (e.g., techniques vs. rules vs. templates).

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 'sentinel_analytics_rule_templates_list' for listing templates or 'sentinel_analytics_rule_templates_count_by_technique' for counting by technique. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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