lexicon_ls

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful content-level context by explaining what `hear` and `say` map and where `caption_view` shows `hear` rule firings. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core concept in the first sentence. The `caption_view` sentence is somewhat tangential, and 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations, but neither adds meaningful bulk.

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 read-only, zero-required-param list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description provides adequate context about the lexicon's content. It could be stronger with an explicit 'list' action and a pointer to the add/remove siblings, but no critical operational information 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 only parameter, `path`, is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, including its default and binding behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource ('project's standing corrections') and its two categories (`hear` and `say`), so the scope is clear. It stops short of a 5 because it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' and does not directly distinguish the tool from `lexicon_add`/`lexicon_rm`.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not point to `lexicon_add` or `lexicon_rm` for modifications, and 'Read-only' only describes safety, not selection conditions.

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