glossary マクロの第2引数補完

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a replacement action but does not state whether the file is modified in place, how existing second arguments are handled, or what happens if the terminology data lacks the ID. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 focused sentence in Japanese, front-loaded with the action and target, with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core transformation but lacks behavioral and usage context. It does not mention return behavior or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 sole parameter jaFile already has a clear schema description (path in translated-content, absolute or relative). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond referring to 'specified file', so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb (replace) and resource (glossary macros in a translation file), with a clear transformation pattern from {{glossary("id")}} to {{glossary("id", "表示")}}. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (start, review, commit) which serve different workflow stages.

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 context of use is implied: run on a translation file to complete glossary macro second arguments. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites (e.g., needing terminology data). Sibling tools are not compared.

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