Count Crowdsourcing Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, return format). It does not contradict annotations, but also does not add value beyond them.

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, clear sentence (8 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

As a simple count tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks return type information (e.g., integer). While annotations cover safety, the description would benefit from stating what the output represents (e.g., 'Returns an integer count').

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline per rubric is 4. The description appropriately avoids adding unnecessary 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 'Get the total count of crowdsourcing projects' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('total count of crowdsourcing projects'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transkribus_crowdsource_list and transkribus_crowdsource_get_details, which serve different purposes (listing or fetching details).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a count is preferred over a list, nor does it exclude any contexts. Without any usage direction, agents may misuse or overlook the tool.

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