accelo_count_interactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about what is returned (a numeric count), whether nested interactions are included, permissions, or rate limits. The 'single activity' scope is the only behavioral detail offered.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence with a clean args block and no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter count tool, though the args section restates the obvious.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the count represents or its return shape, but it does not. For a tool whose entire value is a numeric result, that is a meaningful omission.

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% and the schema only labels the property 'Id', so the description's 'id: Activity ID' does add needed meaning. However it provides no format, type, or example guidance beyond identifying the parameter as an activity identifier.

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 (count) and resource (interactions) and scopes it to a single activity, which distinguishes it from sibling list/count tools like accelo_list_interactions and accelo_count_activities. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly name the alternatives it competes with.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to the numerous sibling count/list tools. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and the one-line purpose.

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