get-workout-count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation (get) and a simple aggregate result, but does not detail the return format (e.g., integer vs. object), potential performance implications, or scope limitations beyond 'on the account'. Minimal but not misleading.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. First sentence states the action; second provides rationale for use. Every word 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?

For a simple no-parameter count tool, the description is largely complete: it tells what it does and why. The only gap is not explicitly stating the return type (a number), but 'total number' reasonably implies that. Given no output schema or annotations, a modest addition like 'Returns an integer' would make it fully complete.

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, and the schema fully documents that. The description adds meaning by clarifying the scope is the entire account ('on the account'), which is useful context that the empty schema cannot convey. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this description does not diminish it.

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?

States the exact function: getting a total count of workouts for the account. The verb 'Get' and resource 'total number of workouts' are specific, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get-workouts (which returns a list) and get-workout (which returns a single item).

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?

Provides clear use cases ('Useful for pagination or statistics') indicating when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context of counting vs. fetching implies the appropriate selection among siblings.

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