get_job_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation returning a count, and the optional filter is explained. No side effects or permissions are mentioned, but for a simple count query, this is sufficient.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns. No fluff, all sentences are necessary and informative.

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 simple count tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers what, how to filter, and what will be returned (JSON string with count). It is 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable context for the 'status' parameter with examples ('open', 'closed') and its purpose (filter). This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 action ('Get total count of jobs') and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_jobs (which returns a list) and other count tools (e.g., get_application_count).

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 usage (when a count is needed) and mentions the optional status filter, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like list_jobs for detailed data or other count tools for different entities.

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