count_collection_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic counting functionality without mentioning performance implications, whether it's read-only, or how results are returned. This is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return value (e.g., that it returns a count) and handling of edge cases like empty collections or large datasets.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the optional nature of filters, adding minimal extra meaning. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 with high coverage.

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 action (compte/counts), the resource (items in a collection), and the scope (with optional filters). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_collection_items or search_collection_items, which retrieve or search rather than 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 description implies usage for counting items, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or when to avoid it. Since the purpose is self-evident, a score of 3 is appropriate as minimal viable guidance.

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