line_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what is counted (total lines, non-empty, blank) but does not explain how lines are defined (e.g., handling of trailing newlines, whitespace-only lines). For a simple tool, some behavioral context is missing.

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 very concise—two sentences without extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and includes a parameter line. However, it omits any structural elements like return value description, which might be warranted given the lack of annotations. It earns points for efficiency but loses some for missing non-redundant detail.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description provides a minimally adequate overview. It covers the basic function and parameter. However, it does not explain the output format or handle edge cases, leaving some gaps that an agent might encounter. An output schema is present, partially mitigating this.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description includes 'text — Text to count lines in,' which adds a minimal semantic hint but does not elaborate on expected format, constraints, or examples. The schema already defines 'text' as a required string, so the added value is marginal.

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's purpose: 'Count total lines, non-empty lines, and blank lines in text.' This specifies the verb 'count' and the resource 'lines in text,' distinguishing it from siblings like word_count or char_count. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately conveys what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other text analysis siblings (e.g., paragraph_count, sentence_length_analyze). There is no explicit context, prerequisites, or mention of when not to use it. The usage is implied but not supported with comparative or alternative recommendations.

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