List a dictionary's banned and custom words

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

Annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool returns the effective merged list for a style (style words plus global words), which is exactly what audit_text applies. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence contributes unique information: scope options and the merged-list behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 has one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains what is returned for the global and style cases, including the merged-list concept. The absence of output schema detail is acceptable for a read-only list tool.

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 100% and the parameter description already explains styleId (look up style list, omit for global). The description adds further meaning by clarifying the default scope and the merged-list result when styleId is provided, so it enhances understanding of parameter impact.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('banned-words and custom words lists'), and distinguishes between the global list and a style-specific list. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explaining that this tool reads dictionary lists, not styles or audit results.

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 clear context: the global list is the default, and a styleId looks up a specific style's list. It also mentions the effective merged list and its relation to audit_text, which tells the user when the result matters. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but it's clear from scope and purpose.

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