Get Sent Reply Message Count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function (getting a count) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, timezone handling beyond the schema, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. The description is minimal and adds no context beyond the basic operation.

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 front-loads the action and resource. There is zero waste, and it effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the core functionality. It indicates the tool returns a count and specifies the date input. It does not explain what a 'reply message' is or any edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already documents the 'date' parameter with format, pattern, and timezone. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the score remains at the baseline.

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' and the specific resource 'the number of reply messages sent on a specified date'. This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_sent_push_count or get_sent_broadcast_count by focusing on reply messages. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 the context of a specified date but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives (e.g., get_sent_push_count, get_sent_multicast_count). It implies usage for reply message counts but does not name exclusions or alternative conditions. An agent could infer the distinction from the resource name, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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