count_words

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (counting words, lines, characters) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as performance (e.g., handling large texts), output format, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, though it's not misleading.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to clarity. No waste or redundancy is 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single input parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output (e.g., what format the counts are returned in) and behavioral context. For a simple counting tool, this might suffice, but it leaves gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'text' documented as 'Texto a analizar'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't specify parameter constraints or usage nuances. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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's purpose: 'Contar palabras, líneas y caracteres en un texto' (Count words, lines, and characters in a text). It specifies the verb ('contar') and resource ('texto'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_text' or 'split_text', which might have overlapping text analysis functions, preventing a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where it's preferred over tools like 'analyze_text' or 'split_text', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied (text analysis), but explicit usage instructions are missing.

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