dictionary_capable_of

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. It mentions 'offline ConceptNet' implying a knowledge base lookup, but fails to disclose behaviors like what happens if the word is not found, whether it mutates state, or any latency/permissions considerations.

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 very short and to the point, with an illustrative example. No unnecessary words, though it could benefit from a structured format (e.g., listing parameters briefly).

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?

While the tool is simple (1 required param, no output schema), the description lacks details on return format, error handling, or pagination (if any). It provides a minimal but functional explanation, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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%, yet description only addresses the 'word' parameter via example. It does not explain the 'language' or 'limit' parameters (e.g., default values, range for limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 the tool retrieves typical actions (CapableOf) using ConceptNet, with a concrete example (dog -> bark). This specific verb-resource combination and example effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like synonyms or antonyms.

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 hints at usage via example but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dictionary_used_for, dictionary_at_location). No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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