list-glossaries

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 clearly states what the tool returns (metadata) and what it excludes (entries). While it does not mention read-only status or pagination, the behavior is sufficiently transparent for a simple list operation.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds a crucial exclusion and referral to a sibling tool. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the return contains, clarifies the scope ('all glossaries'), sets expectations about entries, and provides a path to a related tool. Nothing critical 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific details since there are none, but it does enrich the understanding of the output, which is relevant for parameterless list operations.

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 explicitly states the tool lists all glossaries with specific metadata (name, dictionaries, creation time), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not fetch glossary entries. The verb 'Get a list of' is precise and the scope is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when not to use this tool ('does not fetch any glossary entries') and explicitly recommends the alternative tool ('Use the get-glossary-dictionary-entries tool to fetch entries'). This gives the agent actionable decision-making information.

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