word.related

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

No annotations provided; the description discloses it returns ranked candidates with relevance score, syllable count, and grammar tags. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only lookup this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: first sentence states the tool's function, second details usage and output. Information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input, relation types, and output fields. It omits mention of limit parameter but schema fills that gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%; the description adds meaning for 'word' and 'relation' (listing all enum values) but does not mention the 'limit' parameter. However, the schema defines limit with default, min, max.

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 it is a 'related-word lookup via Datamuse' and enumerates all relation kinds (rhymes, synonyms, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like word.define.

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?

It instructs the user to supply a seed word and relation kind, listing the options. It implies the context for synonym/antonym lookups but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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