term_get

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 mentions 'Get unshown programming terms' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or return format. The agent must infer behavior from the name and limited description, which is insufficient for a mutation or data retrieval 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 concise with two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and domains. It's front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by listing parameters).

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 has an output schema (which covers return values), the description's gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral transparency are partially mitigated. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it still lacks completeness for a tool with three parameters and unclear behavioral traits.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'domain' parameter with examples but doesn't explain 'project_directory' or 'count'. This leaves two parameters undocumented, failing to add sufficient meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('unshown programming terms'), and it provides domain examples like 'programming_basics, algorithms, web_development, etc.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., debug_record, debug_search, learning_session), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tools. It mentions domains but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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