count_sections

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

Without annotations, the description discloses it uses the same filter set as search_sections and skips ranking. It also notes version requirement v1.59+. It does not explicitly declare read-only, but 'count' implies non-destructive. Slightly more detail on side effects or permissions would improve, but currently adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with version, purpose, and use case. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, filter equivalence, and use cases. Could mention return type or pagination, but the use case (counters/probes) implies a simple number.

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%, so the description adds value by listing the filter parameters (path_glob, role/roles/exclude_roles, tags/exclude_tags, min/max_level, min/max_byte_length) and noting they match search_sections. This groups the 12 parameters meaningfully, though individual parameter details are omitted.

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 it counts sections with the same filter set as search_sections, skipping ranking. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by mentioning 'same filter set as search_sections' and 'skip ranking', making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: 'Use for UI counters or "does anything match?" probes.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and implies when not to (e.g., when ranking is needed, use search_sections).

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