get_word_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, but fails to mention whether it is a read-only operation, what the count format is (e.g., unique or total words), or any authentication requirements. This lack of detail requires the agent to infer too much.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from slight restructuring to include usage context.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. However, it lacks explanation of the return value (e.g., integer count) and does not help the agent differentiate from siblings, making it minimally complete.

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 (the parameter 'category' is described as 'Optional: get count for specific category only'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but adds no extra 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 'Get the number of words in the sensitive word database' clearly specifies the action (get) and the resource (number of words). It is precise and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like detect_sensitive_words and get_categories, which have different purposes.

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 such as detect_sensitive_words or filter_sensitive_words. It also does not explain when to use the optional category parameter, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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