Count My Documents

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already indicate safety. The description adds that it counts only the current user's documents, but does not explain the parameters 'index' and 'nValues' which may affect behavior. Open world hint is true but not elaborated.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary 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 count tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the return format (likely a number) or the role of pagination parameters. Annotations fill some gaps, but behavioral context could be improved.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters like 'index' and 'nValues'. The parameter 'getAllDocsIfAdmin' is also not explained in context.

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 the resource 'total number of documents owned by the current user'. It specifies the scope (owned by current user) and distinguishes from the sibling 'transkribus_user_list_my_docs' which lists documents.

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 explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned. The description implies use for counting instead of listing, but does not provide explicit guidance or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'transkribus_coll_count_docs' exist but are not referenced.

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