accelo_count_jobs

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 says nothing about return format (e.g., an integer), permissions required, rate limits, or how filters are applied, leaving the agent with almost no behavioral context.

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 zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.

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 count tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description should at least clarify what filters and search accept and confirm the return type. It does neither, so an agent lacks sufficient context to invoke it confidently.

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% for both parameters. The description only mentions 'filters' in passing and completely omits the 'search' parameter, adding no meaning beyond the property names and leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.

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 (jobs) with a scope (matching the given filters). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like accelo_list_jobs or name alternatives.

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?

Only implies that the tool is for counting jobs that match filters. There is no guidance on when to use it versus accelo_list_jobs or other count tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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