get_line_counts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses that outputs are line counts, but says nothing about default behavior (e.g., recursion, hidden file handling, pagination, or what errors occur). This is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and adds one practical tip. Extremely concise and readable.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. A two-sentence description is inadequate to explain parameter interactions, return format, or how this tool fits with siblings. It leaves the agent to infer too much from the schema alone.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions extensions filtering, which slightly reinforces the schema but adds no new meaning. It does not need to compensate, so a 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 returns file line counts with categorized breakdown (code/blank/comment), using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('file line counts'). It differentiates from sibling tools which focus on functions, smells, complexity, etc., though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 only guidance is 'Use extensions to filter,' which is a parameter tip rather than a usage context. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_code_inventory or get_complexity_metrics, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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