plugin_param_count

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the essential read-only nature ('Return number') and the output category (a count), but it doesn't explain edge cases like invalid plugin indices, whether the count includes hidden parameters, or what happens when no plugin is found.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and easy to parse, though very sparse; the brevity is acceptable for the core purpose but leaves out useful context.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain what 'index' refers to, what 'slot' means, what 'location' channel/mixer selects, or what the numeric return value represents in context.

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%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters: index, slot, and location. Since the schema properties have only titles and types, and the description doesn't compensate, an agent has no semantic guidance for supplying valid inputs.

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 ('Return') and resource ('number of automatable parameters'), so an agent knows the tool produces a count. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like plugin_params or plugin_find_param, but the phrase 'automatable parameters' narrows the purpose sufficiently.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plugin_params, plugin_get_param, or plugin_find_param. No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the only relevant use case from the one-line description.

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