count

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 only states the basic operation, missing details such as whether it is read-only, lock behavior, or privilege requirements.

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, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is so concise that it omits important parameter and behavioral context.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, the role of 'params' for prepared statements, or the database/connection parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 60%, but the tool description only mentions 'table' and 'where', which are already clear from the schema. It does not add meaning for 'params', 'database', or 'connection', leaving a gap in understanding for a 5-parameter tool.

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 a clear verb ('COUNT') and resource ('table'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query' which return rows, or 'delete_rows' which modify data. The optional WHERE clause further clarifies scope.

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 states it counts rows with an optional WHERE clause, implying its use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for other aggregations) or suggest alternatives like 'query' for returning rows.

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