Read one glossary term: full English definition plus the Chinese translation (译名 + 中文定义). Accepts the term slug (e.g. "address-poisoning") or its site path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Glossary term slug or path |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only action, the accepted input forms, and the output composition. It does not describe not-found or error behavior, which is a minor gap for a simple read tool.
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 convey the action, output content, and accepted input format with no redundancy. The most essential information is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the input format and the return contents. It lacks error-handling details, but that does not prevent an agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete slug example ('address-poisoning') and clarifying that a site path is also accepted, which goes beyond the schema's brief 'Glossary term slug or path'.
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 reads one glossary term and specifies the returned content: full English definition plus Chinese translation. It is specific about the resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like read_article or list_content.
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 provides clear context: use when you need a single glossary term by slug or site path. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the scope is evident and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: listing content, reading an article, reading a glossary term, and searching across content. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, even for similar operations like reading an article vs. reading a glossary.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_content, read_article, read_glossary, search). While 'search' is a single verb, it is a common exception and the overall pattern is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a content access server. Each tool covers a distinct access mode (list, read, search) without redundant or unnecessary additions, making the surface compact yet functional.
The tool surface fully covers the server's purpose: browsing the table of contents, retrieving articles and glossary terms, and searching across both languages. There are no obvious gaps in the core workflow of discovery and reading.