cigchat_flow_bot_users_count

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET) and the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify what 'status' means or the shape of the returned count, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes the endpoint and auth requirement. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter count operation, the description gives the core function and auth requirement. However, the phrase 'bot users status' is ambiguous regarding whether it's a single total or a status-breakdown, and no output schema exists to clarify. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter detail.

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 count') and the resource ('bot users status'), plus the endpoint. It is specific enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from related sibling tools such as cigchat_team_bot_users.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't explain when to use this count tool instead of listing bot users, nor any alternatives or exclusions. Only an authentication scope is mentioned, which is not usage guidance.

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