word_study

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/destructive=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: automatic language selection, the structure of each word line, verse block labeling, and the output cap. This goes beyond simple safety flags and helps set expectations, though it could mention error handling or edge cases.

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?

Concise and well-organized, starting with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then output details and constraints. Each sentence carries useful information, though the list of fields per word line is a bit dense. Overall it is appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return structure (word lines with position, lemma, etc.), the pragmatic use case, and the output cap. No significant gaps remain.

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 100% of the parameter (reference) with description and examples. The tool description reiterates the 'short passage' and 'capped at 10 verses' constraints but doesn't add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema. It's at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair: 'Show the original-language words behind a verse or short passage,' and clarifies the Greek/Hebrew split. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing wording and nuance, and provides a concrete example ('John 21:15-17') that makes it unmistakable.

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 the tool: 'Use when the question is about wording, nuance, or "what does this word really mean?"' and gives a clear example. It also differentiates from the strongs_entry tool by telling users to follow Strong's IDs with strongs_entry, and advises keeping references short due to the 10-verse cap.

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