Count Lines of Code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. The description is consistent with annotations and does not introduce new behavioral information (e.g., auth needs, rate limits), but it also does not contradict them.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the essential purpose and output. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for an AI agent to quickly grasp.

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 presence of an output schema, thorough annotations, and a rich input schema, the description is adequate for a basic understanding. However, it omits mention of optional filters and response formats, and does not leverage the sibling context to clarify when to choose this tool, leaving room for improvement.

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 100% for all parameters, including path and filters. The tool description only briefly mentions 'under a path,' which does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the description fulfills the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 lines of code), resource (under a path), and output format (summarized per language plus totals). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings by focusing on a high-level summary, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., scc_by_extension, scc_complexity_hotspots). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when to avoid using it, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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