get_track_count

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the basic function without detailing return format (e.g., integer), default scope, or whether it counts enabled/disabled tracks.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, front-loading the core purpose.

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?

Lacks mention of the return type (likely integer) and the scope ('in the current timeline' or 'in the project'). Given no output schema and no annotations, these details are missing.

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 schema has 0% coverage, but the description lists the three allowed values (video, audio, subtitle), adding essential meaning beyond the schema's type 'string' and default. However, it does not note case sensitivity or exact formatting.

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 tool returns the number of tracks filtered by type (video, audio, subtitle). However, it does not explicitly mention the scope (e.g., current timeline or project) and uses a noun phrase instead of a verb, slightly reducing specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there is no other tool returning track count, but the description does not provide context for usage or exclusions.

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