Check glossary compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states 'Deterministic string matching — no API key and no model call required,' which transparently explains the method and resource needs. This exceeds the minimum but could mention side effects (e.g., read-only, exit codes).

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the technical approach. Ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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 is simple (3 params, no output schema) and the description is enough for an agent to understand its role and behavior. It does not specify return format or error handling, but for a checking tool with no output schema, this is not critical. The mention of deterministic matching covers the execution context.

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 schema covers all three parameters and the descriptions add useful context (e.g., 'Path to locale tree, .arb directory, or .xcstrings file' for path, 'Source language code' for source, 'Path to a glossary JSON file' for glossaryPath). Since coverage is 100% and descriptions are meaningful, this scores above baseline.

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 ('enforce') and identifies the resource (glossary compliance) across a locale tree. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like check_locales or check_placeholders, which focus on different aspects of localization.

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 implies the tool is for checking glossary terms but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or list exclusion criteria. It could benefit from a note like 'Use when you need to validate glossary adherence rather than general locale structure.'

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