PBX statistics

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description adds context that the tool returns aggregate counts rather than detailed records, making clear it is a summary/overview operation. This augments the annotation meaningfully without contradicting it, though it could have added a bit more detail about the output structure.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and scope, and the second sentence gives a practical usage tip. 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 zero-parameter read-only statistics tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is counted, that it is a high-level summary, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description adequately explains what the tool counts, which is all that is needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Counts across the PBX') and enumerates the exact objects counted: extensions, devices, ring groups, call queues, IVR menus, voicemails, conferences, and gateways. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list tools, which are all list-oriented rather than aggregate-count-oriented.

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 'Use this first for a quick health picture of the server' provides explicit guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name the alternatives, but the 'counts' nature plus the 'use this first' instruction implies it is meant as an aggregate overview before using more specific list tools like ictpbx_list_extensions.

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