explain_term

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

The description is a single sentence that does not disclose behavioral traits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it omits critical details like whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the term is not found, or if there are authentication or rate limit considerations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to provide essential context such as the nature of the operation (read vs. write), error handling, or what 'Explain' means in terms of output. For a standalone tool, this feels incomplete.

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% for the single parameter 'text', which is described as 'Term text or alias to explain.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No extra constraints or format details are provided.

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 action ('explain') and the resource ('lexical/domain term'), and references a specific standard. It distinguishes from siblings like 'explain_code_security' and 'explain_glyph' by focusing on domain terms. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes a 'lexical/domain term' and the implications of the 'OmniGlyph Explanation Standard'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 16 sibling tools including similar 'explain' tools, the lack of usage context makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool.

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