glossary_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '查看' clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation, and '持久化' plus 'scan 时自动并入候选' disclose the glossary's persistence and its relevance to scan behavior. This is sufficient for a simple list operation with an output schema.

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 concise sentence communicates purpose, persistence, and connection to scan behavior. Every word earns its place, and the key action '查看' is 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?

For a parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It names the resource, states the read-only intent, and clarifies how the glossary relates to scans. No critical information is missing for correct selection and 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent unnecessary parameter details; it focuses on what the tool returns access to. No parameter semantics are needed beyond this.

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 the specific verb '查看' (view) with a clear resource: the persistent sensitive-word glossary. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like glossary_add and glossary_remove by indicating it is a read-only listing operation, and the parenthetical about scan behavior adds useful scope that goes beyond the tool name itself.

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 context: this glossary is the persistent dictionary that gets automatically merged into candidates during scan. This implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to inspect the active glossary that affects scanning. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter list tool.

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