glossary_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that additions persist and automatically affect future scans, but it does not mention duplicate handling, reversibility, permissions, or error behavior.

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?

A single sentence with two clauses: the first states the core action and the second states the meaningful consequence. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it says what to do, what counts as valid input, and the effect on future scans. Minor omissions like duplicate behavior are not critical for basic invocation.

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 provides no description for 'terms' (0% coverage), but the description's '确认过的敏感词' supplies the semantic meaning and the criterion for inclusion. For a single string-array parameter, this is sufficient, though limits or formatting constraints are not specified.

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 identifies the resource (glossary/dictionary) and the action (adding/persisting confirmed sensitive terms), distinguishing it from glossary_remove and glossary_list. The verb '沉淀' is idiomatic, but the meaning is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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?

It states the appropriate input ('confirmed' sensitive words) and the consequence for future scans, providing implied usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like glossary_remove, redact_apply, or note when not to use this tool.

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