dictionary_antonyms

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It mentions 'offline ConceptNet' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when words are not found.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It lacks elaboration on parameters but remains appropriately brief.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not cover return format, parameter details, or behavioral context needed 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?

Schema coverage is 0%; the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The 'limit' and 'language' parameters are left unexplained, leaving gaps in understanding effects and valid inputs.

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 it gets antonyms for a word, specifying the resource (antonyms) and scope (any language, offline ConceptNet). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like dictionary_synonyms or dictionary_hyponyms.

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?

Context is clear: use when you need antonyms for a word. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like dictionary_synonyms for related tasks.

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