processDefinition_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. It adds useful behavioral context that filters match the list operation, but fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), authentication requirements, or the specific return value format (integer count).

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first establishes the action (count), second links to sibling capabilities (filters), third provides usage guidance (pagination planning). Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Appropriately complete for a simple count utility. It covers the essential purpose, filter semantics, and usage pattern. Minor gap: without annotations or output schema, it could briefly confirm this returns a numeric count and is read-only, though 'count' implies this sufficiently.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the tool accepts 'filter criteria' (referencing the sibling list tool's filter behavior), which compensates for the empty schema by indicating that filtering parameters are expected even if not explicitly defined in the JSON schema properties.

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 counts deployed process definitions and mentions filter criteria support. However, it slightly falters because the input schema shows zero parameters, yet the description references filters, creating a minor ambiguity about how filtering is actually accomplished.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: it states to 'Use before listing to plan pagination' (when to use) and references the sibling tool 'list' via 'Supports same filters as list' (distinguishing from the retrieval alternative). This directly helps the agent choose between count vs. list operations.

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