accelo_count_issues

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 confirm this is a read-only operation, does not describe what the filters object accepts, and says nothing about return shape or permission/scope behavior for counting issues.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the other gaps.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, one sentence is not enough. The agent has no information about filter syntax, search semantics, or what the count result represents.

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 coverage is 0% with two parameters ('search' and 'filters'), yet the description only echoes 'filters' and never mentions 'search' or the expected structure of either argument. Since the schema documents nothing, the description should compensate and does not.

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 ('issues'), which cleanly separates it from accelo_list_issues and accelo_get_issue. It does not explicitly name the sibling or state the count-vs-fetch distinction, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'matching the given filters' implies a filtered count but gives no when-to-use guidance, no note about when to prefer accelo_list_issues instead, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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