accelo_count_enum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that invalid endpoint combinations return a structured error and that search is only supported "where supported," which is useful. However, it does not describe return format (no output schema), authentication needs, or other behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by critical constraints and a structured Args list. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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 four parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what a successful response contains, error structure details, or any rate limiting. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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% across four parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds meaning by giving examples for object ("issues") and enum_type ("statuses"), clarifying that filters is a "Filter dict," and that search applies to titles where supported. This is valuable but partially incomplete for a 0% coverage schema.

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 gives a specific verb ("Count") and resource ("an object's enumeration values") and includes the filtering constraint. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling accelo_list_enum beyond the count vs list distinction.

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?

It states a key usage constraint: only some enumerations expose a count endpoint, and directs the agent to accelo_list_enum for valid pairs. This is actionable routing guidance, though it doesn't cover all when-to-use scenarios.

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