dictionary_synonyms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of transparency. It notes the tool is offline and supports 80+ languages, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention behavior for unknown words, performance, or result format.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and context. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and quickly adds technical detail. Could be slightly expanded for structure but remains clear.

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 simple lookup tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: offline resource, edge count, and language support. It does not describe the output format, but that is often inferred for synonym retrieval.

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 input schema already covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (word, language). The description only adds 'any language' nuance but does not explain the 'limit' parameter beyond its schema constraints. With 67% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value.

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 'Get synonyms for a word in any language', specifying both the action and resource. The mention of 'offline ConceptNet 5.7 SQLite' provides context that distinguishes it from sibling tools like dictionary_antonyms or dictionary_hypernyms.

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?

While the description implies the tool is for synonym lookup, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., dictionary_all_relations, dictionary_lookup). No 'when not to use' or context for excluding other tools.

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