accelo_count_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format (though no output schema exists, so return format is less critical). Minimal transparency.

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?

One concise sentence with no waste. However, it's so terse that it lacks necessary detail, which is more of an under-specification issue than a conciseness flaw, but the sentence is efficient.

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?

For a tool with one required-free parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description should explain how to use the filters parameter and what it returns. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'filters' has 0% schema description coverage – it's an untyped object with no explanation. The description says 'matching the given filters' but gives no detail on filter syntax, accepted fields, or structure. Fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (count) and resource (activities) with a mention of filtering. Adequately distinguishes from sibling accelo_list_activities, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative like the high-quality example does.

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 on when to use this tool versus accelo_list_activities or other count tools. The description gives no context or implied usage scenarios.

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