get_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions optional filters but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), performance considerations, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for output details in the description. However, for a tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it should provide more behavioral context to be 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 description adds basic semantics by explaining that 'doctype' is an ERPNext DocType name and 'filters' is an optional JSON string, which provides context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't detail filter syntax, examples, or constraints, leaving parameters partially documented but with room for improvement.

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 document count') and resource ('for a DocType'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a counting operation rather than retrieving full documents (like get_document) or lists (like list_documents), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like get_list_with_summary which might also provide counts.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where counting is preferred over listing (e.g., for performance or summary purposes) or differentiate from siblings like get_list_with_summary that might include counts. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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