count_issues

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits, aggregation behavior), but only states 'Returns count of issues'. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but omits crucial information, such as that the count reflects the current filters or that all parameters are optional. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.

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 22 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the count represents, how filters affect it, or the return format (e.g., JSON with count field).

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes all 22 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 'Returns count of issues' clearly indicates it's a counting operation on issues, distinct from listing tools like 'get_issues'. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it returns a numeric count rather than issue objects, which could be inferred from context.

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 like 'get_issues' (which retrieves full issue data) or 'count_notifications' (which counts notifications). The description lacks any context for appropriate use.

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