get_line_counts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the return type (line counts) and a filtering hint. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it scans recursively, how hidden files are handled by default, or any performance implications. For a tool with 7 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though it could add a bit more behavioral context without becoming bloated.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain return value structure, default behaviors (e.g., whether hidden files are included by default), or how filters interact. An agent would need to inspect the schema carefully and still might not know when to choose this over sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning extensions as a filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., grep vs ignore_patterns) or default behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns file line counts (code/blank/comment).' This clearly identifies what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource (line counts) is distinct enough among the listed siblings.

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 gives a brief usage hint: 'Use extensions to filter.' This implies the tool is for counting lines and can be filtered, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_code_inventory or get_complexity_metrics. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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