List known islamweb dictionaries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the scope (subject 73) and the fact that it returns all dictionaries, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention error conditions, rate limits, or any impacts. It adds some context but leaves room for improvement.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and the returned fields, then adding a relevant usage context. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: the resource, the fields returned, and why it is used (as a registry for crawls). It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a straightforward list operation this is likely sufficient and not a critical gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter meanings. The schema is empty, and the description does not need to compensate for any coverage gaps. This is a perfect score per the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 names the resource (dictionaries under islamweb library subject 73) and the exact fields returned (bookId, key, title, author, id range), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like islamweb_fetch_entry (which fetches specific entries) or islamweb_search.

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?

It states that the list is the registry used by the crawl workflow and crawl-all-dictionaries command, implying it is the tool to call when you need to enumerate all available dictionaries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when not to use it or compare with alternatives like islamweb_lisan_al_arab_info.

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