parse_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only count operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, mention any required permissions, or describe potential side effects or limitations (e.g., performance on large datasets). The description adds minimal context beyond the core action.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two short sentences to convey the main purpose and the optional filter. There is no redundant or filler content, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple, but the absence of an output schema means the description should hint at the return format (e.g., a numeric count). It does not. Also, it does not clarify that className is required (though the schema shows it). Overall, the description gives the essential purpose but lacks details about the response and input structure beyond the schema.

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 only mentions 'where filters' as an optional parameter. The className parameter is not mentioned at all. While the schema itself describes the parameters, the description does little to compensate for the lack of schema coverage, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from the raw schema.

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: counting the total number of objects in a Parse Server class. It also mentions the optional 'where' filter, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_query or parse_get_object that return objects rather than counts.

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 usage for counting objects and optionally filtering, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., parse_query, parse_aggregate) or state when to prefer this tool over others. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, only the general scenario.

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