Contar imputaciones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool counts records matching a filter, which is transparent. No contradictions. The lack of additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits) is acceptable given the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and usage context without wasted words. It is appropriately concise.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role. However, it could briefly mention that it returns a count number, but the tool name implies that.

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 70%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level guidance beyond the schema. Parameters like taskIds, personIds, and projectIds have no descriptions, but the tool description does not compensate.

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 counts time records matching a filter, which is a specific verb-resource combination. The tag '(útil antes de listar rangos grandes)' explicitly differentiates it from listing tools like beebole_list_time_records.

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 explicit context: 'útil antes de listar rangos grandes' (useful before listing large ranges). This implies when to use it (before potentially expensive list operations). It does not mention when not to use or alternatives explicitly, but the context is clear enough.

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