task_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, its performance characteristics, or what the return value contains. The mention of unsupported filters further reduces transparency.

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 appropriately concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose (action, capability, use case), though the middle sentence creates confusion given the schema constraints.

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 counting utility, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'why'. However, the lack of output schema combined with the mismatch between described filters and actual schema parameters leaves critical invocation details ambiguous.

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 contains zero parameters, which by the evaluation guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description's reference to 'filter criteria' is misleading given the empty schema, but with no parameters to document, the semantic requirement is technically minimal.

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 states the core action (counting user tasks) clearly, but becomes problematic by claiming the tool accepts 'filter criteria' when the input schema defines zero parameters. This creates ambiguity about whether the tool actually supports filtering or if the schema is incomplete.

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 phrase 'Useful for workload sizing' provides contextual usage guidance. It also references 'task list' implying this is an alternative for counting versus listing, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over fetching the full task list.

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