job_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions 'filter criteria' but the input schema has zero parameters, creating ambiguity about how filtering is performed. It lacks disclosure of return format (number vs object), performance characteristics, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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?

Two sentences total. First sentence establishes purpose immediately; second sentence provides usage guidance. No redundant or filler text.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate workflow context (backlog assessment). However, it should clarify the return value format and resolve the mismatch between 'filter criteria' and the parameter-less schema.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the mention of 'filter criteria' in the description conflicts with the empty schema (properties: {}), implying parameters exist when they do not. This creates confusion about how to specify filter criteria.

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?

States specific verb (Count), resource (jobs), and scope (matching filter criteria), clearly distinguishing from siblings like `job_list` (list) and `job_get` (retrieve single).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use to assess backlog size before listing.' This provides workflow context and implicitly references the sibling `job_list` tool, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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