count_occurrences

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses behavior: returns only total and file count, never loads content, supports all listed filters, and indicates error recovery steps. No contradictions.

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 relatively concise and front-loads the core purpose. It uses bullet-style use cases and example JSON. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is thorough. It explains return format with example, error handling, and all applicable filters. No gaps identified.

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%, and description adds marginal value by summarizing filter parameters ('Supports all filters (lang, file, glob, exclude, symbols, kind)') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 it provides 'Count-only statistics for a pattern' and distinguishes itself from siblings by recommending over grep -c, wc -l, rg --count. It specifies it returns total occurrences and file count without loading content.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (e.g., 'how many times is X used?', impact checks before refactoring, validating search scope) and provides error handling guidance ('On Index not found call index_project, then retry'). Also mentions preferring this over alternative shell commands.

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