Get Contexts Count

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description merely restates the action; it doesn't mention the response format (e.g., integer) or scope of the count, so transparency is minimal.

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 of six words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, it's terse and close to a tautology of the title, providing little added value beyond the name.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is functionally complete: it states what it returns (total count). But it doesn't define the scope of 'contexts' or what the count represents, and there's no mention of output type. Given the simple nature, it's minimally sufficient but could be improved.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema covers 100% of them (i.e., none). With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter information. It correctly doesn't mention non-existent 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 tool returns the total count of contexts, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('contexts'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling context tools (e.g., lyzr_get_context_usage) or explain what 'contexts' refers to, so it's clear but not distinctive.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't say when to use this instead of lyzr_list_contexts, lyzr_get_context, or lyzr_get_context_usage, nor does it mention any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that 'count' is different from listing.

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