gate402_token_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'FREE' but does not state that it is read-only, has no side effects, or requires authentication. It lacks information on rate limits or output format, leaving 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 extremely concise, with two sentences that are front-loaded with key information (FREE, then what it does). Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers basic purpose and use case. However, it omits important details like return value format (e.g., integer), any limits on input size, or that the count is approximate. These gaps prevent full completeness.

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 clear description for 'text'. The tool description adds tokenizer info and usage hint, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 estimates token count for a string, specifying tokenizer types (cl100k/o200k) and a use case. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which focus on other text operations.

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 mentions 'FREE' and 'Use to budget context windows', providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor give exclusions. Since no sibling does token counting, this is adequate but could be improved.

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