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. 'Count lines in text' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify details like how it handles different newline formats (e.g., \n vs. \r\n), whether it counts empty lines, or what the output format is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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 at three words, front-loaded with the core action, and has zero wasted words. Every part ('Count', 'lines', 'in text') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like newline handling or output format, and with no annotations to fill gaps, it leaves the agent with incomplete context for reliable use. A more complete description would add details on edge cases or return values.

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 with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'text' should contain or any constraints. However, with only one parameter and a straightforward purpose, the baseline is adequate, but it doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 lines in text' clearly states the verb ('Count') and resource ('lines in text'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like count_characters and count_words by specifying lines rather than characters or words. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., it could mention it's for line counting vs. other text operations), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 when to prefer count_lines over count_characters or count_words, nor does it specify context like handling empty lines or newline characters. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references, leaving usage decisions to the agent's inference.

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