get_vocabulary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'pure read of the vocabulary database. No side effects.' which clearly discloses behavioral traits. Also describes return format (one entry per term with fields).

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?

Extremely concise: first sentence states purpose, second details return, third provides usage guidelines, fourth states behavior. No wasted words. Well-structured with clear sections.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and presence of an output schema (though not visible), the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, return format, usage conditions, and behavior. Complete for a simple 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline score is 4 per guidelines. Description does not need to add parameter info, but it does describe the return fields, which adds 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?

Clearly states it lists every term in the user's voice vocabulary with specific details (pronunciations, add-date). Distinguishes itself from siblings like add_to_vocabulary and remove_from_vocabulary by being the read-only counterpart. Additionally, explicitly says 'NOT FOR: searching transcript history — use search_voice.'

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?

Provides explicit USE WHEN scenarios ('auditing what's been taught, or before adding a term to check for duplicates') and a clear NOT FOR case with an alternative tool reference ('use search_voice'). This gives strong guidance on when to invoke.

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