count_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions generating markdown output and saving Claude context, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are needed, how large projects are handled, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 structured but not front-loaded efficiently. The core purpose is stated first, but the 'WORKFLOW,' 'TIP,' and 'SAVES' sections contain marketing-like language that doesn't add essential operational information. Sentences like 'Perfect for understanding complex code' and 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions' don't earn their place in a tool description.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (beyond 'markdown directory tree'), doesn't address error handling or constraints, and provides minimal behavioral context. For a tool that appears to perform structural analysis, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'projectPath' vs 'filePath' vs 'files'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze directory structure and generate markdown directory tree with file and folder counts.' This is a specific verb+resource combination (analyze structure, generate tree with counts). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_project_structure' or 'analyze_single_file,' which appear related.

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 provides some usage context through 'WORKFLOW' and 'TIP' sections, suggesting it's for understanding complex code and technical debt, and recommending using Desktop Commander first. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_project_structure' or 'analyze_single_file,' leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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