get_terms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'getter' by revealing the exact structure of the returned data: the arrays ('basic', 'commands', 'params') and the 'messages' map, including a hint of its contents (menu labels, system messages). This gives the agent clear expectations of what to receive, which is valuable for a read-only 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action ('Get the game vocabulary/terms') and then immediately provides the specific components returned, with no filler or redundancies. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what is returned. It explicitly names the array and map fields, making the tool's output predictable. However, it could mention potential error conditions (e.g., no game loaded) or note that it returns the full set of terms, but these are minor gaps for such a simple getter.

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 is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on the return contents. This maximizes usefulness given the tool's simplicity.

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 retrieves game vocabulary/terms, and lists the specific components: 'basic', 'commands', 'params' string arrays and the 'messages' map. This precise verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_system or get_game_title, which target different aspects of the project.

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 explicit guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of a 'use set_term for editing' or 'see get_database for the full database'. The usage context is only implied by the getter nature of the tool, but the description does not clarify when to prefer it over similar retrieval tools.

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