get_asset_counts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it reveals almost nothing. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response structure is, whether counts are grouped, or any side effects (e.g., performance implications).

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 short sentence with no redundancy, and it front-loads the core purpose ('Get asset counts'). It is efficient in length, though it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned counts look like, how the filters interact, or why an agent would choose this over other asset-related tools.

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, but it merely says 'optional filters' without elaborating on tags, collection_id, or storage_folder_id. The parameter names in the schema are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description adds no meaningful semantics or usage details.

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 verb 'get' with 'asset counts' clearly identifies a counting operation on assets, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_asset or search_assets. However, it lacks explicit scope (e.g., total count vs. grouped counts) and does not mention what the counts represent, so it is not fully specific.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_assets or get_asset. The description only says 'optional filters' without explaining contexts that call for this tool, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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