seerr_list_issue_count

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

The description simply restates the tool name and adds no behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose whether the counts are global, scoped to the authenticated user, or grouped by status, nor does it provide any additional context about permissions or response shape.

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 three words, front-loaded, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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 the zero-parameter schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't clarify the exact semantics of 'issue counts' or hint at when this endpoint is preferred over listing issues, leaving slight contextual gaps.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is fully covered and there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter syntax or meaning. The description's lack of parameter detail is therefore acceptable, though it could have clarified what 'issue counts' semantics are.

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 'Gets issue counts' uses a clear verb and resource, and the word 'counts' distinguishes it from sibling tools like seerr_list_issue. However, it doesn't specify what kind of counts (e.g., total, by status) are returned, leaving some semantic ambiguity.

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 about when to use this tool versus seerr_list_issue or seerr_get_issue. The description relies entirely on the tool name's implications and offers no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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