get_tool_count

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. 'Get count' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain whether it requires authentication, how it groups by server, or if there are any limitations. The description is adequate but minimal for a simple count tool.

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, concise sentence that uses clear noun-verb structure. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose. It could add detail about the output format, but the output schema likely covers that. The behavior is simple and the description is complete enough for the context.

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 covers this with an empty properties object. The description correctly implies no input is needed, so there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 verb 'Get count' and the resource 'available tools by server', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_all_tools (which likely returns full details) and get_tool_schema (which returns schemas).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_all_tools or get_tool_schema. It is left to the agent to infer that this is for a lightweight count rather than full details.

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