needfix_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Bounded' hints that the count may be capped, but the description does not state read-only status, side effects, exact bound behavior, or any auth/permission needs.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core operation. However, for a three-parameter tool with no annotations or schema parameter descriptions, it is too sparse to be appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required. Still, the description omits filter semantics, usage context, and sibling differentiation, leaving meaningful gaps for a count tool with optional filters.

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 schema has three optional parameters (kind, status, severity) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. An agent receives no additional meaning about what these filters accept or how they combine.

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 a specific verb and resource: it counts NeedFix entries, which is a clear operation. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as needfix_list or dashboard needfix counts, so it falls short of the top score.

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 use needfix_count versus needfix_list, needfix_show, or the dashboard needfix tools. The description provides no filtering context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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