glossary

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

Annotations are all false, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that promote writes to a committable file (mutation), review returns candidate terms with symbols, and list returns the glossary. However, it does not specify whether promote is idempotent, what happens on duplicate terms, or if any rate limits apply. Adequate but incomplete.

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 paragraph that enumerates actions in a clear, scannable format. Every sentence adds essential information; there is no verbose or redundant text.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 3 actions, no output schema), the description covers the main behaviors and constraints. It explains the return for review (candidate terms with connected symbols) and the storage outcome for promote. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that promote requires both term and definition, though implied.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping parameters to specific actions: limit for review, term and definition for promote, and action itself determines behavior. This helps an agent correctly combine parameters with actions.

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: to manage a shared glossary by reviewing candidate terms, promoting them to a permanent file, and listing approved terms. It distinguishes three specific actions (review, promote, list) and describes what each does, making the tool's function unambiguous and differentiated from sibling tools.

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 clear guidance on when to use each action: review for exploring candidate terms, promote to add a term with definition, and list to view approved glossary. While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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