analyze_text_stats

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Get statistics' aligns. The description adds specific types of statistics returned (character count, word count) but does not detail any further behavioral aspects like side effects or permissions. It provides some context but not extensive.

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 sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It could mention the return format or that all statistics are returned, but for a basic stats tool, it is sufficient. The context signals (annotations, schema) are well complemented.

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 only parameter 'text' has a schema description 'Text to analyze', and the tool description does not add beyond that. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not compensate with additional meaning.

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 function: getting statistics about text, listing examples like character count and word count. It directly addresses the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates it from sibling tools like compare_text or convert_text operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, an explicit statement about when to choose this over text conversion or comparison tools would help. The description is missing usage context and exclusions.

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