wordplay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it explains corpus backing, exact matching criteria, the context-only-for-pun rule, the contextualized/uncontextualized labeling, the 'never jokes' boundary, and provenance on every result. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 adds necessary information, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The structured enumeration of kinds keeps complex detail readable without wasted words.

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 4 parameters, 2 required, and a rich output schema, the description provides all needed invocation context: required parameters, supported kinds, per-kind constraints, context handling, and provenance behavior. Nothing essential is missing for correct use.

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 description gives each enum value a precise operational meaning (anagram normalization, palindrome storage status, spoonerism structure, CMUdict homophone puns) and explains the context parameter's special behavior. This substantially compensates for the schema's incomplete parameter descriptions.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Find corpus-backed wordplay candidates of one requested kind.' The description then enumerates four distinct relation types, which clearly differentiates this tool from dictionary/rhyme siblings.

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 makes it clear when this tool is appropriate by tying each wordplay relation to a specific kind value. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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