keywords-for

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list but doesn't describe format, size limits, error handling, or performance traits (e.g., rate limits, caching). The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context for effective use.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits and parameter meaning, which are needed for full contextual understanding despite the output schema.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds that the parameter is a 'syntax' but doesn't explain what constitutes valid syntax (e.g., programming language names, file formats, query types). This partial compensation is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 states the tool 'returns the keyword list for the given syntax', which provides a basic verb+resource relationship. However, it's vague about what 'keyword list' means (e.g., programming keywords, search terms, metadata tags) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'lookup-syntax' or 'search'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup-syntax' or 'search'. The description implies usage when a syntax is known and keywords are needed, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.

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