dictionary_used_for

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

The description mentions the data source ('offline ConceptNet') but lacks details on behavior such as whether results are limited to specific parts of speech, how non-existence is handled, or if the tool is read-only. Without annotations, this is a modest disclosure.

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 one sentence with an example, using only 13 words. It efficiently conveys purpose and an illustrative instance without any filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity and the absence of output schema, the description hints at the return format (uses like 'cutting') but does not specify the response structure or edge cases. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any of the three parameters. While 'word' and 'language' are somewhat inferable, 'limit' is not defined, and all three lack explicit semantic clarification beyond the tool name.

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 returns 'Typical uses (UsedFor)' via ConceptNet, with the example 'knife -> cutting' illustrating the relational output. This verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'dictionary_synonyms' 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any contextual signals or explicitly state that this tool is for finding typical uses as opposed to other semantic relations.

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