count_issues

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it returns a count, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how filters are combined (AND/OR), or any limitations (e.g., maximum count). This is insufficient for a tool with 22 parameters.

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 lacks important context. It is not overloaded, but the brevity sacrifices completeness. The structure is minimal and does not aid 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?

With 22 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the filtering logic, what the return value looks like (e.g., integer, object), or any usage tips. The tool is complex enough to warrant more detail.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full 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 'Returns count of issues' clearly states the tool returns a count (not a list) and specifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_issues' which returns issue details. However, it does not explicitly state the filtering capability, which is implied by the many parameters.

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 like 'get_issues' or 'count_notifications'. The description does not mention scenarios where a count is preferred over a list, nor does it clarify the relationship between filters.

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