List detector word lists

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

The description states it is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation), takes no parameters, and returns the same catalog per release (constant behavior). This adds context beyond annotations, though it could mention potential dataset size or caching.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key features with zero waste. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates what the tool returns (entry count, config key, sample entries, link). For a zero-parameter read-only catalog tool, this is complete and clear.

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 tool has no parameters, and the description confirms this ('takes no parameters'). Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4; no additional value needed.

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 specifies a clear verb ('return') and resource ('every detector word/phrase list') with detailed output fields (entry count, config key, sample entries, link). It distinguishes from siblings check_file, check_text, and fix_duplicates, which are for checking and fixing.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before tuning a config for check_text or check_file') and when not needed ('not needed for ordinary checking'), providing clear guidance relative to sibling tools.

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