sourcery_get_group_counts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. It implies a read-only aggregation but says nothing about permissions, scoping defaults, whether results are project-wide when no parameters are supplied (0 required params), or what the response contains.

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 short sentence is technically front-loaded with no filler, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline; it is too thin for a tool with two undocumented filters. Nothing is wasted, but too much is missing.

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 no annotations, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no required parameters, an agent cannot tell how this aggregation is scoped or filtered. The definition leaves the caller guessing about inputs, defaults, and result shape.

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?

Both parameters (issue_types, repository_ids) have 0% schema description coverage and the description does not mention either of them. Worse, it names 'status and severity,' which are not parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap and can actively mislead about what is accepted as input.

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 verb and resource ('Aggregate group counts') and names the dimensions (status, severity), which is more than a tautology. However, it never defines what a 'group' is and does not distinguish itself from the sibling sourcery_get_security_counts, which sounds near-identical in purpose.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no routing to or away from alternatives such as sourcery_get_security_counts or sourcery_list_groups. Usage is only weakly implied by the tool name and one-line description.

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