list_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not state whether this operation is read-only or has side effects. It does not disclose any behavioral details beyond listing definitions and noting broken ones.

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 relatively short but includes extraneous phrasing (e.g., 'Every term used in a query must be here') that does not directly explain the tool's function. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more streamlined and 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?

The description does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters affect results, or the context of use relative to the other tools. Given the simplicity of the schema, the lack of detail leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 includes 'family' and 'include_broken', but the description provides no explanation of these parameters or their impact. The schema itself has no descriptions, so the meaning of the parameters is completely undocumented.

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 implies listing definitions ('Broken definitions ... are listed') and mentions the vocabulary concept, but it does not explicitly state a clear verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It is not a tautology, but it is somewhat indirect and could be clearer.

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 like get_definition, query, or delete_definition. The statement about every term being in the vocabulary hints at a use case but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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