get-glossary-dictionary-entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool retrieves entries for a single dictionary, not an entire glossary, and clarifies the relationship between glossaries and dictionaries. This is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the bare function name. However, it does not mention potential side effects (which are likely none) or error conditions, but for a simple read operation, the transparency is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the primary purpose, then provides the essential glossary/dictionary context, and ends with actionable usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded. Despite a minor typo ('consists one of one or more'), the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, but the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how it relates to the overall glossary concept, and how to use it correctly in multi-dictionary scenarios. It does not describe return format or pagination, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it. A small gap is the lack of explicit mention of what happens if no entries exist, but this is not critical.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (glossaryId, sourceLangCode, targetLangCode) with 100% coverage, including format examples. The tool description adds conceptual context about language pairs and directions, which aligns with the parameters but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Retrieve all the entries from a given glossary dictionary.' It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by explaining that a glossary consists of dictionaries, and this tool operates on a single dictionary for a specific language pair. This is a specific verb+resource description that avoids confusion with get-glossary-info or list-glossaries.

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 provides usage guidance: 'To retrieve all entries for a glossary with multiple dictionaries, use the get-glossary-info or list-glossaries tool to find out what dictionaries it contains, then use this tool for each dictionary.' This tells the agent when to use this tool, how to discover required parameters, and mentions alternative tools, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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