Workspace statistics

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description reinforces this by stating it 'counts' data, which is consistent with read-only behavior. It adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination or performance), but the annotation covers the critical safety aspect, so this is adequate.

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 front-loads the action ('counts') and then lists the specific items. It contains no filler or redundancy and is immediately scannable.

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 has no parameters and a read-only annotation, the description sufficiently communicates its purpose. While it does not describe the return format, the scope is clear enough for an agent to call it without ambiguity, and it is consistent with sibling tools that serve different specific functions.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete and there is nothing for the description to add. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as the description has no obligation to clarify parameter usage.

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 uses the verb 'counts' and explicitly specifies the resources it aggregates: stored conversations, messages, providers, and active handoffs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_conversations or list_handoffs, which likely return detailed records rather than aggregate counts.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it for statistics/aggregate counts, but it does not name sibling tools or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use list_conversations for details'). Context is present but not explicit.

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