text_stats

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as input/output format, side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. The only extra detail is the cost, which is not behavioral.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. However, the first sentence is redundant with the tool name, and the second provides only cost information. It is not structured to prioritize functional clarity.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, and the description gives no information about what the text_stats tool does, its input/output structure, or how it fits among the many sibling utilities. The context is almost entirely absent, making the tool impossible to select or invoke correctly.

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 input schema has a single generic 'params' object with a generic description 'Tool parameters as JSON object', providing no meaningful parameter semantics. The tool description fails to add any detail about what parameters are expected or how they affect the operation, so the 100% schema coverage does not compensate for this lack.

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 'text stats' merely restates the tool name and categorizes it as 'Other Utilities tool', providing no verb or resource to indicate what the tool actually does. It does not differentiate this tool from numerous text-related siblings like word_count or char_count.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions cost and category, without stating any specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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