get_task_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: it returns a count without fetching full data, implying a lightweight, read-only operation. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., integer) or mention potential edge cases like empty results.

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 two sentences, highly efficient, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose: stating the action, contrasting with an alternative, and providing a performance benefit.

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?

Despite the clear purpose and parameter coverage, the description lacks specification of the return value. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing whether the count is a number, string, or object. For a tool with many parameters and a simple output, this omission harms completeness.

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 all 15 parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no further semantic details about parameters. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool's function: 'Get count of tasks matching filters without fetching full data.' It uses a specific verb ('get count') and resource ('tasks'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_tasks' by noting it's for when only the count is needed.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: 'Faster than list_tasks when you only need the count.' This provides clear guidance and implicitly warns against using it when full task data is required. No explicit exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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