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 behavioral burden. It discloses which three metrics are computed, which is useful, but says nothing about counting rules (whitespace splitting, unicode, empty input), whether it is a pure read-only operation, or the shape of the result. For a zero-annotation tool this is a real gap, even though the operation is intrinsically simple.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the purpose, followed by a minimal Args block. No waste, though the Args block restating 'text' contributes little value.

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 tool is simple and takes one required string, so not much is needed. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description never indicates what the caller receives (counts of words/characters/lines presumably as a structured result), which is the one piece of information an agent would still want.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does list the single parameter with an Args block. However, 'The text to analyze' is nearly a restatement of the parameter name and adds little meaning beyond what an agent would already infer.

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?

States a specific verb (count) and resource/metrics (words, characters, lines) in a single clear sentence. Against a sibling set of file, network, git and JSON tools, there is zero ambiguity about what this does.

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 never says when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to any alternative. For a simple utility this is tolerable, but no usage guidance is provided at all.

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