Compter les mots

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

The description states the tool counts words and characters, implying a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not disclose the return format or whether it counts spaces/punctuation. Without annotations, the description could provide more behavioral detail, such as that the tool does not modify any data.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the primary action and then providing context. Every sentence is informative and no extraneous words are present.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no siblings, the description covers the core functionality and use case. It could improve by mentioning the output structure, but overall it is sufficient.

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% (one parameter fully described). The description's parameter elaboration ('Le texte a analyser...') adds no new information beyond the schema's definition, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool counts words and characters of a provided text, with specific verb 'compte' and resource 'mots et caracteres'. It also gives example use cases (message, summary, paragraph) to clarify purpose. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not needed.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: for measuring length of a message, summary, or paragraph. However, it does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives, but given the simplicity and absence of siblings, the guidance is adequate.

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