get_glossary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the requirement of prior indexing, which is useful. However, it does not describe pagination behavior or what happens when no search term is given, though these are inferable.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a requirement line, with no unnecessary words. The purpose is immediately clear and front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should ideally mention the return format (e.g., list of entity names, docstrings). It does not, which leaves agents guessing. However, the core functionality is well-covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra semantics or context for parameters, just the general purpose. Baseline is 3.

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 a searchable glossary of code entities (classes, functions, methods) from an indexed repository, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that perform analysis or explain individual entities.

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 a clear prerequisite (index_repository must be called first), but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like search_code or explain_entity for similar tasks, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool specifically.

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