Text-Toolkit

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. It states what the tool does ('Count characters') but lacks details on behavior: it doesn't specify if whitespace or punctuation is included, whether it returns an integer or structured data, or if there are any limitations (e.g., text length constraints). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise ('Count characters in text')—just three words—with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'characters' means (e.g., Unicode code points vs. bytes), doesn't mention the return type or format, and provides no behavioral context. For a tool with zero structured coverage, more detail is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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 1 parameter ('text') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is text to count characters from, but it doesn't elaborate on format (e.g., plain text, encoded strings) or constraints. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of detail beyond the obvious reduces the score to 3.

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 characters in text' clearly states the verb ('Count') and resource ('characters in text'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'count_lines' and 'count_words' by specifying characters rather than lines or words. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what constitutes a 'character' (e.g., Unicode vs. ASCII, whitespace handling), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'count_lines' or 'count_words' for different counting needs, nor does it specify contexts where character counting is appropriate (e.g., text analysis, input validation). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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