Get Stress Minimal Pairs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks the operation as safe, and the description's 'Returns' aligns with that, so there is no contradiction. Beyond the annotation, the description adds domain context about what stress minimal pairs are, but it does not disclose operational behaviors such as ordering, randomness, or how the limit parameter affects the result set. The added context is useful but not rich behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by a useful parenthetical example and a short context clause. There is no filler, and every element contributes to understanding what the tool returns and why it matters.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema. The description tells the agent what data is returned and its domain, while the schema covers the limit parameter completely. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 schema fully documents the lone 'limit' parameter, including a description, default, and min/max bounds, so the description does not need to explain it. The tool description itself mentions no parameter details and adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and a precise resource 'stress minimal pairs', clarifying exactly what the tool provides. The concrete example 'CÁsă vs caSĂ' and the phrase 'Core pronunciation training data' clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like cl_get_error_patterns or cl_get_grammar_map, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 that this tool is for retrieving pronunciation training data about stress placement, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer cl_get_error_patterns. The context 'Core pronunciation training data' is helpful but leaves selection criteria to inference.

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