sourcery_get_security_counts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only aggregation, whether it covers the whole tenant or only accessible repositories, whether an empty result is possible, or what the returned counts look like. For a net-new description with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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; it is efficient and readable. It is arguably too lean for the tool's complexity, but there is no wasted language to trim.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented input parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain what is counted, how the filters constrain the aggregation, or what the caller receives, leaving the agent to guess at both inputs and return 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither of the two parameters (issue_types, repository_ids) is documented in the description. Worse, the description names 'status' and 'severity', which are output grouping dimensions, not inputs, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap and arguably points the agent at the wrong fields.

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 (aggregate) and resource (issue counts) plus the grouping dimensions (status, severity), so an agent can infer it returns summary counts rather than individual findings. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like sourcery_get_group_counts, and the term 'issue' vs. the sibling family's 'findings' creates mild terminology ambiguity.

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 statement of when to prefer this over sourcery_security_snapshot or sourcery_get_group_counts, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the names of siblings.

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