tasks_count

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 only states that the tool counts tasks, missing behavioral details such as whether it is read-only, side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.

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 wasted words, but it is overly concise. It lacks structure or elaboration, and while it is front-loaded with the key action, it does not provide a complete picture.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the filters, return value, or any constraints. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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%. The description merely references 'same filters as tasks_list' without explaining any of the six parameters (q, source, status, etc.). It adds no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess or reference another tool.

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 verb 'count' and resource 'tasks'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'tasks_list' by specifying that it counts with the same filters, making the purpose specific and 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 implies that the tool should be used when a count is needed instead of a list (via 'same filters as tasks_list'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to, or mention alternatives. The guidance is only implicit.

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