channel_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the count is global across all groups, which is useful, but it does not describe behavior when global_count is false, side effects, or return format. For a simple read-only count, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the core meaning with no filler. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter tool, though it is too sparse to fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 one-parameter count tool, the description covers the core return concept and the global scope, but leaves the false branch of global_count undefined and gives no usage context relative to sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, this is only minimally complete.

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 must compensate. It only glosses the global_count parameter via 'global = across all groups' and does not explain what false means or note that the parameter is optional with a default. The parameter name and default are visible in the schema, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 identifies the resource (channel count) and a specific scope (global across all groups), which differentiates it from sibling tools like pattern_count and mixer_count. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return', but the intent is 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like channel_all or pattern_count. The parenthetical scope is the only context and does not help an agent decide among siblings.

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