get_execution_status_counts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: the effect of the cycles parameter, that project/version accept keys/names or ids, and that -1 = Unscheduled. It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but the core read-only behavior is implied. Overall, it provides good transparency 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 concise, using two sentences plus a brief note on id usage and a use case. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and quickly covers parameter behavior. There is no redundancy, though a more structured layout could improve readability.

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 has 7 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main modes (with/without cycles), explains id vs key usage, and gives a use case. It does not explain folders, components, or the exact shape of the output, but these are either self-explanatory or secondary. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% (only param titles provided). The description adds meaning for cycles (comma-separated), project/version (keys/names/ids, -1), and hints at filtering. However, it does not explain folders, components, offset, limit, or output format. This partial coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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 it provides a status-count rollup for a project/version, enumerating statuses like PASS, FAIL, WIP, BLOCKED, UNEXECUTED. It distinguishes from siblings like get_execution_status_counts_by_assignee by focusing on overall rollup. Use cases (release Go/No-Go, compliance summaries) further clarify 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?

The description explains when to use the cycles parameter vs not (with cycles returns breakdown for those cycles, without cycles returns per-cycle breakdown). It advises preferring ids when available to skip lookups. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_executions, but the context is clear enough for typical usage.

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