alien_phrases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only lookup behavior and the language scope, but does not disclose output format, error handling for unsupported languages, or any limitations. This is acceptable but adds limited behavioral context beyond the basic 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It names the action, resource, and scope all at once, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly adequate. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and scope. However, because no output schema exists, a brief mention of what the lookup returns (e.g., translations, definitions) would make it fully complete.

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%, and the schema already describes the 'language' parameter with examples. The description reinforces these examples through 'Klingon, Vulcan, Ferengi, etc.' but adds no new semantic detail about value formatting, case sensitivity, or accepted language names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and clearly identifies the resource ('phrases and vocabulary from Star Trek alien languages'), with named examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rules_of_acquisition, which has a narrower Ferengi-specific scope.

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 intended usage is implied by the description: use when needing a phrase or vocabulary lookup in an alien language. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better alternative for related but distinct needs (e.g., Ferengi rules).

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