Get Qmetry priority reference count

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation (get), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, list any prerequisites, or describe the response format. The minimal description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 sentence with no extraneous information. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains what the tool does but omits what the response looks like (e.g., a number) and potential errors. For a basic reference count tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, clearly linking projectId to 'Get QMetry Enabled Projects' and priorityId to 'Get Priorities'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the action (Get), resource (Qmetry priority reference count), and scope (for a given project). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get-qmetry-label-reference-count by specifying the resource type. However, it could be more precise about what 'reference count' entails.

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 alternatives. For example, it is not mentioned that get-qmetry-priorities should be used first to obtain the priorityId. Without such context, the agent may misuse or fail to invoke the tool correctly.

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