Get Hyperlink Count

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, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of counting semantics (unique vs total, nested links, duplicates, malformed brackets) or edge cases. The one returned line, {"count": n}, merely restates what the existing output schema already defines, so it adds no behavioral value.

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, front-loaded with the operation and target, with zero filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return structure need not be explained (and the description's echo of it is redundant). For a one-parameter counting utility this is nearly complete, though edge-case counting behavior would be worth a clause.

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 0% and the single 'text' parameter is only typed as a string in the schema, but the description usefully constrains the expected input format to wikitext markup containing [[wikilinks]], which is real meaning beyond the schema. It does not, however, clarify how the parameter is scoped or validated.

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 precise verb and resource: count [[wikilinks]] in a wikitext string. This distinguishes it from sibling counters like get_url_count, get_ref_count, get_doi_count and get_isbn_count by naming the exact target syntax, though it doesn't explicitly compare itself to extract_wikihypelinks, which is the closest functional neighbor.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling count/extract tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and target syntax.

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