dictionaries_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool gets dictionary data but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The mention of tool_help for parameters is helpful but does not cover behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently state purpose and provide usage guidance in a front-loaded manner. Every sentence adds value with no redundant 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 moderate complexity (generic dictionary getter), the absence of output schema, annotations, and param descriptions means the description should compensate more. It lacks return format, param format, and behavioral info, relying on tool_help for parameters, which is insufficient for complete contextual understanding.

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 has 0% description coverage for the required 'names' parameter. The description partially compensates by giving examples (Currencies, GeoRegions) and directing to tool_help for details, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., comma-separated string vs. array). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 gets reference dictionary data by names and provides examples (Currencies, GeoRegions, etc.). It distinguishes from the sibling 'dictionaries_list_names' which lists available options, and implicitly from 'dictionaries_get_geo_regions' which is more specific. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool returns data.

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 advises using 'dictionaries_list_names' to see available options, which gives context on when to use this tool. It also directs to 'tool_help' for parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to other siblings like 'dictionaries_get_geo_regions'.

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