incident_event_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, destructive, rate-limited, or permission-restricted. The description only states 'Count objects' without any behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 a single cluttered block mixing endpoint path, vague purpose, and a long list of allowed values. It is not concise; the endpoint path is extraneous and the list should be separated. The structure does not front-load essential information for the agent.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the count represents, how parameters affect results, and any constraints. It fails to provide a complete picture, omitting details like return format, behavior with missing parameters, and relationship to sibling tools.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100% with minimal descriptions, the description adds a long list of allowed values for analyticsEventAction, which is missing from the schema. However, it contains a contradiction (claiming required parameters where schema shows none) and the allowed values list is poorly formatted. The added value is marginal and partly misleading.

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 'Count objects by stuff' is vague and does not specify what kind of objects are counted. The tool name suggests incident events, but the description fails to clearly state that it counts incident events based on query parameters. The inclusion of the endpoint path adds some context but the purpose remains unclear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling count tools like incident_event_count_1. There is no differentiation or context about prerequisites or preferred use cases. The misleading claim about required parameters (q, searchQuerys) contradicts the schema and adds confusion.

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