add_glossary_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly describes the return behavior: returns the created entry dict on success, or an error dict for blank or duplicate input. This goes beyond a simple statement of the action and gives the agent specific expectations about outcomes and error cases. It could mention other validation constraints, but the disclosed information is already valuable.

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 efficient and well-structured. It leads with the action, then lists parameters with concise definitions, and ends with return behavior. There is no redundancy; every section serves a purpose. The formatting using 'Args:' and 'Returns:' makes it easy to scan.

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 add operation, the description is complete. It covers all five parameters, including which are required (three required) via the schema, and explicitly notes return behavior and error conditions. No output schema exists, so the return description is necessary and sufficient. There is no mention of prerequisites or side effects beyond what is relevant for this operation.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains every parameter with concrete examples (e.g., term: 'USAF', expansion: 'United States Air Force'), and clarifies that domain and aliases are optional. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Add a new glossary entry.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like add_fact or update_glossary_entry. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly scoped to glossary entries.

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 implies usage (when you want to add a glossary entry) but does not explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool over alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that update_glossary_entry should be used for existing entries. The only guidance is the verb 'Add', which is implied rather than explicit.

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