tigergraph__get_vertex_count

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state side effects, read-only behavior, or performance implications. While a count is inherently read-only, the description does not confirm this, leaving the agent to assume safety.

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, focused sentence with no superfluous information. It is highly concise and directly addresses the tool's purpose, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

The description lacks explicit details about the return format (e.g., integer, JSON object) or error conditions. While a count naturally returns a number, the absence of any output specification or edge-case handling reduces completeness. For a simple count, this is acceptable but not 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?

All three parameters have descriptions that explain their purpose (profile, graph_name, vertex_type). The descriptions are clear but not enriched beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, and no additional depth is added.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('count of vertices in a TigerGraph graph'). It unambiguously conveys what the tool does, and the optional vertex_type parameter clarifies that it can count all types or a specific type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools include get_edge_count and get_node_degree, there is no explicit direction on when to prefer get_vertex_count. The description simply states the functionality without usage context.

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