count_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation (returning count) and the route, but omits details such as error handling, performance implications, or any side effects. This leaves agents with limited understanding of the tool's behavior beyond its core function.

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 conveys the core purpose efficiently. It adheres to front-loading by placing the verb 'Return' at the beginning, and contains no extraneous information.

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 counting tool with a single enum parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient completeness. It identifies the key input and the action, leaving detailed return-value structure to the output schema. However, it could be improved by noting that an invalid 'kind' may cause an error.

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 one parameter 'kind' with enum values, but the description does not explain the meaning of each value or provide any additional context. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it merely restates the parameter name without enriching its semantics.

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's function: returning the number of records for a given 'kind', and explicitly mentions the `/count` route. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_records' and 'get_record' by focusing on counting rather than fetching data.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context of sibling names implies usage for counting instead of listing or getting records, but the description does not articulate conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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