Count My Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the 'owned by current user' scoping, but says nothing about the admin scope implied by getAllDocsIfAdmin or how index/nValues affect the count, so added value is modest.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the pagination/admin parameters unaddressed, which is ultimately a completeness concern rather than verbosity.

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 this is nearly adequate, but the description does not reconcile 'total number' with the index/nValues pagination parameters, nor explain the getAllDocsIfAdmin override that changes whose documents are counted. These gaps matter for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (index, nValues, getAllDocsIfAdmin) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning and in fact creates ambiguity, since a 'total number' would not ordinarily be paginated by index/nValues or scoped by an admin flag.

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 names a specific verb (count) and a clear resource (documents owned by the current user), which is more precise than the tautological title alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling transkribus_user_list_my_docs or transkribus_coll_count_docs, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing states that this should be preferred over list_my_docs when only a total is needed, nor any prerequisite such as being authenticated as the owning user. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'current user'.

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