count_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating it is 'fast' and describing the return shape ('total plus a breakdown by status'). No contradictions or hidden behaviors are omitted.

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 consists of two tightly packed sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose (count without full list), the second adds speed and output details. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage distinction from filter_tasks, and high-level return shape. The annotations handle safety, and the schema handles parameter details. Minor omissions like explicit note about zero-result behavior are not critical, so it's nearly complete.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all 18 properties, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing that it 'uses the same filters as filter_tasks,' which is a usage hint rather than parameter semantics. Thus, it neither improves nor degrades the schema's clarity.

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 a specific verb ('Count tasks matching filters') and resource ('tasks'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like filter_tasks by explicitly noting it does not return the full list. It also mentions the output (total plus breakdown by status), making the 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 indicates usage for 'fast how many queries' and notes that it uses the same filters as filter_tasks, implying filter_tasks is the alternative for retrieving full lists. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' scenarios or name alternatives like get_tasks, so it falls just short of the highest guideline clarity.

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