analyze_distinct_words

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

The description does not detail behavioral aspects such as case sensitivity, punctuation handling, or word definition boundaries. With readOnlyHint true, it avoids side effects, but the description fails to provide sufficient behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and concise, ideal for quick comprehension.

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 output schema), the description adequately conveys core functionality. However, it lacks details about output format or edge cases, which would be helpful but not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'text'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Text to analyze for distinct words', meeting the baseline for minimal added value.

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 'Count distinct words in text and show their frequency' clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs (count, show) and resource (distinct words). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_text_stats' which may provide more general statistics.

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 explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_text_stats' or 'compare_text'. Usage is implied but not clarified, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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