Count tasks

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by revealing the output shape (status breakdown, known estimated minutes), but it does not disclose filtering behavior, aggregation limits, or any other runtime details beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary function is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by adding concrete use cases. Nothing could be removed without losing value.

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 tool with 20 optional parameters and very low schema coverage, the description is too thin to be fully self-sufficient. It gives the output shape and a use-case hint, and the output schema likely documents return values, but it leaves the 19 undocumented parameters almost entirely to inference.

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 only 5%, and the description itself gives no parameter guidance. While parameter names are mostly self-descriptive (days, search, tag_id, etc.), the description does not explain how they combine into 'matching tasks', estimate units, status values, or date-window semantics, leaving a large burden on the agent.

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 states a specific action ('Count'), a resource ('tasks'), and the output ('status breakdown and known estimated minutes'). It clearly differentiates from sibling query_tasks by focusing on counts/aggregate scale rather than listing records.

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?

'Use this before listing when you need scale, daily capacity, or a review total' provides clear context for when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives like query_tasks or state when not to use it, but the 'before listing' direction is an effective usage signal.

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