dictionary_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly notes the operation is a read ('Get'), uses offline data, and concatenates first definitions—key behavioral traits. However, it does not specify return format (e.g., plain string vs. list) or error handling for missing words, which slightly reduces transparency. Still, for a simple lookup tool, the disclosure is largely adequate.

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 consists of two short sentences, the first conveying the main purpose and scope, the second adding a detail on how the summary is assembled. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no extraneous information. The structure is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp functionality.

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 has no output schema, the description could explain what the return value looks like (e.g., string format, presence of empty results). It currently says 'brief plain-text summary' but no structure or error behavior. For a simple tool with many siblings, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps about what exactly the agent receives.

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 100%, and the description adds no information beyond what the schema already provides for 'word' and 'language'. The schema descriptions are clear: 'word' is the term to look up, 'language' is an ISO code with default 'en'. Since the description does not enhance understanding of parameter meaning or usage, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a brief plain-text summary of a word's senses'), and the data source ('offline Wiktextract data'). It further specifies how the summary is generated ('concatenates the first definition of each sense'), distinguishing it from siblings like dictionary_lookup (full entries) or dictionary_synonyms (synonyms only). This makes the purpose precise and differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dictionary_lookup or dictionary_search. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts where a summary is preferable, or cases where this tool should be avoided. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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