Count Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description aligns with these (read-only count operation) but adds no additional behavioral context such as authorization needs or rate limits. With annotations carrying the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, which is concise, but it omits important filter options (userid, collId, etc.), making it slightly misleading. It earns its place but could be improved by including all filter types.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, but good annotations), the description is incomplete because it only mentions two filters. It does not describe the return format. A more complete description would list all filtering options and clarify the output.

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?

Input schema has 7 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description names only two parameters (status, type) and does not add further meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline of 3 applies per guidelines due to high schema coverage.

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 'Get' and the resource 'total number of jobs'. It mentions optional filtering by status or type, but omits other available filters (e.g., userid, collId), which slightly reduces clarity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_job_list or transkribus_job_get.

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 vs. alternatives. For instance, there is no mention that for detailed job info one should use transkribus_job_get or for a list use transkribus_job_list.

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