count_work_packages

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

The description states it returns only the total number, not individual records, and that filters are combined with AND. This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear 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?

For a simple count tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns and when to use it. It lacks error conditions or limit descriptions, which are not critical for this tool.

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 parameters have no descriptions (0% schema coverage), and the description does not explain the filter structure, field names, operators, or projectId format. It only mentions 'native filters' and 'optional project', providing minimal semantic value.

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 returns only the total number of work packages matching native filters and an optional project. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool search_work_packages, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance to use this tool instead of search_work_packages when no task records are needed, and mentions that all filters are combined with AND. However, it does not cover when not to use it or alternative tools beyond the one named.

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