validate_gloss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It validates and shows dictionary signs, implying a read operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded, and every word serves a clear function. Highly efficient.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and usage timing. Minor omission: could briefly describe the output format (e.g., lists existing signs), but context is simple enough that the description is largely complete.

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 gloss parameter, and the description adds 'mostra quais sinais existem no dicionário' but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool validates a gloss and shows dictionary signs, distinguishing it from siblings like lookup_sign or translate_and_validate. It uses a specific verb (validate) and resource (gloss), making purpose evident.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use sempre após traduzir' (Always use after translating), providing clear when-to-use guidance and implying not to use before translation, which differentiates it from other tools.

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