word_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a usage constraint ('[PRO — 3 trial uses left]') and states the counting behavior, but does not mention edge-case handling (e.g., empty text, whitespace, word definitions), leaving some transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. The PRO trial note is a useful extra constraint, and every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description states the input and the counting dimensions, but does not explicitly describe the return value structure. This is a minor gap for a straightforward counting utility, making it fairly complete overall.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'text' described as 'Text to analyze'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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?

Description states the specific verb 'Count' and the resources: characters, words, lines, and bytes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like byte_count (counts only bytes) and char_info (character info).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need counts of text elements) but does not provide explicit alternative names or exclude scenarios. It lacks context on when not to use it, such as 'use byte_count if only bytes are needed'.

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