fluig_task_count

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait — this is a lightweight count that avoids fetching the task list. But it omits scope (current user vs. all users), whether filtering by processId narrows the same total, and any auth/permission expectations for 'prod'.

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 sentence with zero padding, front-loading the key constraint ('Só a CONTAGEM') and the payoff ('sem baixar a lista'). Nothing 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers intent but leaves the return shape undefined (a bare integer? keyed by process?), which matters given the optional processId array. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding how to interpret the result.

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 100%: the 'env' parameter has a thorough enum explanation and 'processId' is documented as a process filter. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema — notably it does not explain whether processId yields one aggregate count or a per-process breakdown. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Só a CONTAGEM de tarefas pendentes') and implicitly separates itself from the list-returning sibling ('sem baixar a lista', i.e. fluig_task_list). An agent can tell what it gets back — a number, not a collection — without opening the schema. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly.

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?

'responde "quantas estão paradas" sem baixar a lista' implies the use case: use this when only a tally is needed rather than full task records. However, it never names fluig_task_list as the alternative, nor states exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. whose pending tasks are counted).

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