count_issues

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

No annotations are provided, placing the burden on the description. The description only states 'Count issues matching a query' and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it has pagination limits, or what occurs when the query is null. For a tool that counts, this missing context leaves the agent uncertain about behavior beyond the trivial reading of the name.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the tool's function and is appropriately scoped for the tool's simplicity. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and fully documented parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits useful context such as how the 'query' parameter behaves when null (i.e., counts all issues?), and it does not reference sibling tools for comparison. Given the low complexity, a 3 is 'minimum viable' but with clear gaps in usage context.

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%, so both parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. It gives an example query string, but this is part of the schema description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Count') and resource ('issues') and states the scope ('matching a query'). It is clear and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search_issues', which may also operate on matching issues.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it should be used instead of 'search_issues' when only a count is needed, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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