word_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose deterministic behavior: words are whitespace-separated tokens of the trimmed text, chars is the raw length. The '[conductor: verified pure command]' tag further signals no side effects. It does not say what the response object looks like, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences with the core definition front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the name. The bracketed conductor tag is low-cost meta-noise rather than wasted prose.

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 one-parameter pure function with no annotations and no output schema, the description defines both computed metrics precisely enough to predict results. Only the shape of the returned value is left unstated.

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. It does add real meaning by explaining that trimming applies to the word count but not the character count, yet it never names the 'text' parameter explicitly or notes required/string constraints.

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 two specific resources ('words and characters') applied to a string, which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish it from truncate, slugify, or summarize without opening the schema.

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 only implied by the tool's obvious utility; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of an alternative (e.g. truncate for length limiting). For a simple utility this is tolerable but it leaves the agent to infer context.

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