Count Issues

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming a safe read operation. However, it adds little beyond the annotation—no details about response format, potential limitations, or behavior differences. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description remains minimal.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 readOnlyHint annotation, the detailed query schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for this simple tool. It covers the core purpose and relies on structured data for details, though it lacks explicit usage guidance.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The query parameter is extensively documented in the schema (covering syntax, functions, and examples), while filter_id has a short description. Schema coverage is 50%, so some parameter information exists, but the description does not compensate further.

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 'Get the count of Yandex Tracker issues matching a query' clearly states the verb (get count), the resource (Yandex Tracker issues), and the scope (matching a query). This distinguishes it from siblings like issues_find, which likely returns the issues themselves.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool versus issues_find. The name and simple statement imply its purpose (for counting rather than listing), but no clear context or exclusions are provided.

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