查看专业术语词表

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. The verb '返回' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation, and it discloses that the glossary is '当前' (current) and '可审计' (auditable), providing state context. However, it does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or mention any access constraints, but the retrieval verb is sufficiently transparent for a getter.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and intended usage. It contains no filler or redundant content, earning the highest score.

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 that this is a zero-parameter getter with an output schema already present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and why it would be used. It explains the 'auditable' and 'book-title restricted' nature of the glossary and ties it to the typo-correction workflow. No gaps are apparent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate.

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 '返回' (returns) and identifies the resource as '当前可审计的书名限定词表' (current auditable book-title restricted glossary). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'update_term_glossary' (which modifies) and other retrieval 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 explicitly states its intended use case: '供智能体依据页面证据补充明确错字' – for the agent to supplement typos based on page evidence. This provides clear context for when to fetch the glossary, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions.

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