suggestwords

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. 'suggestWords' gives no indication of whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description fails completely to inform the agent about how this tool behaves.

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?

While technically concise with just one word, this is an example of harmful under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single word 'suggestWords' doesn't provide enough information to be useful, making this inefficient communication rather than efficient communication.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results it returns. The agent would be operating blindly with this level of documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with example values. The description adds zero additional information about parameter semantics, purpose, or relationships. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score is 3 even when the description provides no parameter information.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 83 sibling tools on the server including similar-sounding tools like 'sug', 'sug_1', and 'susggestwords', the agent has no information about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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