Show Coordination Issue Count By Status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not reiterate safety. However, the description claims the endpoint returns a paginated array of issues, which for a status count endpoint is misleading and not disclosed. This inconsistency reduces transparency beyond what annotations cover.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant phrases like 'Coordination Issues' multiple times and a full API path. It could be shorter without losing meaning. The structure is roughly front-loaded but has conflicting statements.

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?

The description is incomplete and inconsistent for a status count endpoint. It mentions distribution by location and assignee company but the input schema has no such filters. The misleading claim about returning a paginated array of issues further undermines completeness. No output schema, so description should be more precise.

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 100%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds no significant meaning beyond confirming project_id is required and mentioning page/per_page for pagination, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns status counts for Coordination Issues, but then contradicts itself by saying 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Coordination Issues' and 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Coordination Issues', which suggests it returns individual issues rather than aggregated counts. This confusion lowers clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_coordination_issues or show_coordination_issue. The description does not specify when this endpoint is appropriate or provide exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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