find_related_words

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the three types of relations but does not mention behavioral traits like being read-only, data source, limitations, or performance considerations. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Efficiently summarizes the tool's purpose and options.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and relation types. However, it lacks usage guidance vs siblings, which would improve completeness.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds little beyond schema: it mentions relation types (already in enum) but no extra detail on parameter usage or format.

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 finds words semantically related to the input, listing three specific relation types (meaning similarity, triggers, hierarchical). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_synonyms and find_antonyms, which are more narrowly focused.

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 implies usage by listing relation types but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_synonyms or find_antonyms. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are provided.

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