Task counts

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

Annotations already flag this as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and closed-world (openWorldHint=false), so no destructive-behavior disclosure is needed. The description adds a useful summary of the metric categories (total, available, completed, etc.) but doesn't go beyond that into quirks such as default exclusions or date-mode behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the output categories; every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only aggregate tool with a complete schema and an output schema available, the description is sufficient for selection and invocation. It captures the essential filters and return categories, though it doesn't spell out default behavior (e.g., includeProjectRoots) or dateMode semantics—those are already encoded in the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each of the seven parameters documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description merely names filter dimensions already in the schema and adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond it.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Get aggregate task counts') and enumerates the available filter dimensions and returned metrics, so an agent immediately understands the deliverable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_project_counts or filter_tasks, but the 'task counts' resource and aggregated nature are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over filter_tasks, get_flagged_tasks, or get_tasks_by_tag; the description states only what the tool does, not when alternatives are more appropriate. The optional-filters phrase implies a counting use case, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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