scan_surface

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only offers an unclear phrase 'skips said out loud' and no details about side effects, scope, or limitations. The description is far too vague to understand the tool's actual behavior.

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 short but lacks clarity and structure. It reads as cryptic and under-specified, not concise in an effective way. The phrase 'skips said out loud' adds confusion rather than 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the output represents. The context from sibling tools does not clarify the tool's role, and the description is too incomplete to understand the tool's purpose in the broader ecosystem.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the high schema coverage (implicitly 100%) means there is nothing to compensate for.

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 vaguely mentions counting by language but does not specify what is being counted or what 'skips said out loud' means. It fails to clearly state the tool's function, making it indistinguishable from siblings like scan_candidates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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