accelo_count_contributors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that counting happens but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, whether the count respects pagination, or what the return shape is. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple count operation, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 two undocumented parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what a contributor is, how to construct filters, or what the result looks like, so the definition is not sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The parameters 'search' and 'filters' are mentioned only as 'filters' in prose, and there is no explanation of the syntax, format, or accepted keys for either the search string or the filters object. The description does not add usable meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 (contributors), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling accelo_list_contributors beyond the count/list distinction, leaving the agent to infer the difference. Vague about what a 'contributor' is in this domain.

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 count tool versus accelo_list_contributors or accelo_count_contributor_types. The agent must infer that this returns a count rather than a list, and there is no mention of alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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