count_issues

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or performance characteristics. For a counting operation, stating it is non-destructive would be helpful.

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 concise with a clear structure: a one-line purpose followed by an argument list. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no enums), the description could be sufficient if it explained the return value (a count). However, it omits that, and the output schema is not visible in this context. The lack of differentiation from siblings reduces completeness for an agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only provides minimal parameter descriptions ('YouTrack search query' and 'YouTrack instance (optional)'), lacking details on query syntax, accepted operators, or instance format.

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 clearly states the action ('Count') and resource ('issues'), and specifies it uses a 'YouTrack query'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_issues' which return lists, not counts.

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 versus alternatives such as 'search_issues' or 'get_issues'. The description does not explain trade-offs like performance or data completeness.

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