Count Actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency. The description adds 'optionally filtered' but does not elaborate on return format or behavior beyond what annotations provide. With strong annotations, the description's added value is minimal.

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, complete sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word earns its place with no extraneous information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not specify the return format (e.g., a single number). With 12 optional parameters and no guidance on their interaction, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional inference.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 12 parameters. The description only highlights 'collection or type' filters, not adding meaning beyond schema. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage; description does not compensate for low coverage (which is not the case).

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'total count of actions', directly specifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like transkribus_action_list (returns list) and transkribus_action_info (returns info) by focusing on a count.

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 mentions optional filtering but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not indicate when not to use it or direct the agent to other tools for more detailed queries, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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