get_word_counts

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

The description makes it clear this is a read-only operation ('Get'), and describes the return value (breakdown by folder/chapter). With no annotations, this adds sufficient behavioral context, though it does not mention error behavior or performance characteristics.

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, with no wasted sentences. It uses a clear structure with Args and Returns, and explains the default behavior efficiently.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core function, the parameter semantics, and the return value. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention whether folder_path is relative to project root.

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 description thoroughly explains the folder_path parameter, stating it is optional, what it does, and what happens when omitted (default to entire manuscript). This goes beyond the schema's minimal type definition.

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 gets word count statistics for the project or a specific folder, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on word counts rather than content reading or search.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus other project tools. The usage is implied by the purpose, but no alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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