List undocumented domain terms

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: missing terms originate from prior lookup_term calls, and the project parameter narrows the result set. This gives the agent useful operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 deliver the core function, the origin of the data, and the optional filtering behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important fact is 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description fully covers what the tool does, where its data comes from, and how to narrow results. No output schema is present, but the result type is clear from the description.

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%, so the parameter's name and example are already documented. The description adds value by stating that passing a project narrows the list, clarifying the parameter's effect rather than just its identity.

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 is precise: it lists domain terms lacking definitions, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools lookup_term and save_term. The phrase 'no definition yet' communicates exactly the intended resource and state.

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?

It explains that the listed gaps come from earlier lookup_term calls, which contextualizes when this tool is useful. It also tells the agent that passing a project narrows the list, offering clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer lookup_term or save_term instead.

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