sloc

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It covers skipped directories, language recognition, and filtering, but omits details like handling of binary files, symlinks, or comments. The count includes blank lines per the skip_blank parameter, but not explained.

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?

Five sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by key details and usage hints. Each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and missing annotations, the description covers main behaviors well. It explains output type, file recognition, filtering, and per-file option. However, it does not describe return format or behaviors for max_depth and skip_blank.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining glob and show_files usage, but does not elaborate on max_depth or skip_blank beyond what the schema already provides.

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 counts source lines of code, returns per-language summary, and lists key behaviors like skipping non-source directories and recognizing 70+ languages. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like grep or analyze by focusing on code counting.

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 practical usage tips (use glob to filter files, use show_files for breakdown), but does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze or codegraph, nor when not to use it.

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