dictionary_relations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses relation_scope values, distance semantics, transitive behavior with sourced edges, provenance reporting, and the relationship between max_depth, transitive_limit, and limit. This gives the agent an accurate model of how the 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains direct vs transitive behavior, then defines the two non-obvious parameters. The structure is logical and avoids filler.

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 complexity—8 parameters, 11 relation enum values, and an output schema—the description provides enough detail to invoke it correctly. It covers the non-obvious relation scoping, distance behavior, and allocation rules, while return-value details are presumably handled by the output schema.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds real meaning by explaining max_depth as a graph hop limit, transitive_limit as a candidate-class allocation, and the allocation constraint with limit. It does not add detail for sense_id, but the description's treatment of the trickiest parameters is strong.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find one directed lexical or commonsense relation.' It enumerates the full supported relation set and clarifies that results include direction and provenance, making the tool's purpose concrete. This distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like dictionary_lookup or dictionary_semantic_neighbors.

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 gives clear within-tool usage context, especially around max_depth and transitive_limit: 'Set max_depth=1 or transitive_limit=0 for direct results only.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when not to use this tool, but the supported relation list and direct/transitive distinction imply appropriate usage well enough.

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