Parse Pāli Word

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral details: rule-based, not full morphological analyzer, doesn't split compounds or reverse sandhi, returns possible stems. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with sections, emojis, and bold text for readability. It is concise yet comprehensive, with every sentence providing value. No unnecessary information.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, limitations, and workflow. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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% with a clear description of the 'word' parameter. The description reinforces this with examples but does not add significant new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

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's purpose: strip Pāli inflectional suffixes to find the root form. It provides concrete examples like 'dukkhassa' and explains the workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as get_word_definition.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (when get_word_definition fails for inflected words, for splitting compounds, as preprocessing) and when not to (for complex compounds or sandhi). Recommends a specific workflow, making it clear how this tool fits with others.

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