v1thesaurus

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. It describes the return value (lists of synonyms and antonyms) but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is functional but lacks important operational context.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary details.

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 minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases or performance. Without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format, but it meets basic requirements for a simple lookup 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'word' documented as 'word to look up.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only reiterates that it takes 'a given word.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Returns a list of synonyms and a list of antonyms for a given word.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('list of synonyms and antonyms'), and target ('given word'). However, since there are no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 states what the tool does but offers no context about when it's appropriate, what prerequisites might be needed, or any limitations. Without sibling tools, explicit alternatives aren't required, but general usage context is missing.

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