fm_count_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that the tool returns a count as a text message, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or performance implications. Given the simplicity of the tool, the coverage is adequate but not extensive.

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 concise, with a brief introductory sentence, a usage hint, and an Args section. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. Each part serves a clear function, but the overall length is appropriate for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, return value (count as text message), and usage context. The presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) further reduces the need for detailed return value explanation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to explain parameters. The description provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'table' is explained with a cross-reference to fm_query_records for available tables, and 'filter' is described as an 'OData $filter expression.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 action ('Get the total record count'), the resource ('FileMaker table'), and the optional filtering. It differentiates from siblings like fm_query_records, which returns individual records.

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?

The description suggests using this tool as a 'quick way to check data volume or validate filter expressions before running a full query.' It references fm_query_records in the Args section, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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