accelo_count_groups

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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the implicit read-only nature of a count. It does not describe permissions, whether the count respects the caller's visibility scope, or the shape of the result (a number vs. an object).

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 grammatical sentence with zero waste and the operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 an open-ended filters object, no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. An agent still cannot tell what filter keys are valid, what 'search' does, or what the return value looks like.

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%, with two undocumented parameters ('search' and an open-ended 'filters' object with additionalProperties). The description references 'filters' only as a vague phrase and says nothing about the 'search' parameter or the accepted filter keys, so it 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Count groups') and a scope ('matching the given filters'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling accelo_list_groups or the many other accelo_count_* tools, leaving sibling differentiation to the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use count versus list, nor any statement of prerequisites or context. The phrase 'matching the given filters' implies filtering applies but never says which filters or when counting is preferable to listing.

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