Conteo de estados de agentes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context about what data is aggregated, how it is scoped, or any limitations.

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 very brief (one short sentence), which is concise but at the expense of informativeness. Every word should add value, but 'agregado' and 'cambios' do not significantly clarify the output.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description should thoroughly explain what the tool returns and how it can be used. It fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess the exact output format or field meanings.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (implicitly empty). The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline score 4 is appropriate.

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 states it provides an aggregate count of agent state changes, but it's not explicitly clear what the output represents (e.g., counts per state, per agent). The title suggests a count of agent states, but the description adds 'changes', which is ambiguous. A more specific verb and resource description would improve clarity.

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 like pbx_agent_status (which likely gives current status) or pbx_list_agents. The description does not mention context or exclusions.

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