get_user_stars_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Returns,' implying a read operation, but does not mention whether the count includes all stars or is filtered by date, how the count is computed, or any side effects. This adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 10 words, front-loaded with the action and result. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or fluff content.

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 count tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to infer the return value is a number. It clearly states what is returned (the count), and the schema handles parameter details. However, it could have clarified the return type explicitly or mentioned the optional date range, but it does not compromise understanding.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (since, until, userId). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving the schema to carry the load. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 identifies the tool's function: it returns a count of stars received by a user. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'count of stars received by a user' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_user_recent_updates, which focus on recent updates rather than a count.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool (whenever a user's star count is needed), but no explicit guidance is given about alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might serve different purposes.

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