text_word_frequency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions functional features (sorting, ignoring common words) but does not disclose safety, read-only status, or any side effects. This is insufficient for full 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 four sentences, with the first being redundant ('Menu ID: word_frequency'), the second a title, the third the core function, and the fourth a pointer. It could be more concise by removing the first sentence and merging ideas.

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?

The description covers core functionality and points to describe_tool for more details, but lacks specifics on input format, output structure, and usage context. Given no output schema and empty input schema, it leaves gaps 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?

The input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100% but provides no parameter definitions. The description adds value by implying parameters for sorting, ignoring common words, and minimum word length, giving semantics beyond the schema.

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 it counts word frequencies and mentions sorting, ignoring common words, and setting minimum word length. It distinguishes itself from sibling text tools like text_counter, which counts lines/words/characters but not frequencies.

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 description labels it an 'advanced text analysis tool' and directs to describe_tool for full guidance, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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