util_brain__word_count

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

Despite having no annotations, the description supplies substantial behavioral context: sandboxed execution, no network, filesystem, shell, or secrets access, and a pinned artifact. These details communicate isolation and likely side-effect constraints well, though input limits and error behavior are not addressed.

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 core functional sentence is concise, but the opaque "Warden PROVISIONAL B/82" prefix prevents the purpose from being front-loaded. The repeated no-network statements, extensive capability list, and truncated hash add provenance clutter rather than selection or invocation guidance.

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?

Invocation requirements are clear for this simple one-parameter tool, and its execution environment is unusually well documented. Because there is no output schema, however, the missing result structure and counting conventions—such as word-boundary rules and whether characters include whitespace—leave meaningful gaps for consuming the result.

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%, and the sole parameter is already clearly documented as "The text to measure." The description's reference to measuring text adds no parameter meaning beyond that schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 precisely states that the tool "counts words, characters, and lines in text," giving a clear operation, resource, and set of metrics. This purpose is readily distinguishable from all listed siblings, none of which appears to provide text measurement.

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?

Usage is implied: choose this tool when word, character, or line counts are needed. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion, or comparison with alternatives, although the lack of overlapping siblings reduces the selection burden.

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