list_glossary

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 mentions the return format but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it clarify pagination behavior. The phrase 'List all' is potentially misleading given the default limit of 50, which is a behavioral trait that should be disclosed. No information about sorting, exactness of domain filtering, or access requirements is provided.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, labeled Args, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant content. The format is easy to scan and front-loads the primary purpose.

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 the presence of an output schema, the return value description is sufficient. Both parameters are covered semantically, and the tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing for basic invocation. The main gaps are the unaddressed tension between 'List all' and the default limit, and the lack of usage alternatives among siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters. 'domain: Optional domain filter' gives functional meaning beyond the schema's type/default, and 'limit: Max results (default 50, max 100)' clearly defines the constraint and bounds. This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs to set these parameters correctly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all glossary entries with optional domain filter.' It clearly identifies the operation as a read-only listing of glossary entries. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_glossary or lookup_term, but the 'all' scope provides some implicit distinction.

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 by stating the tool lists entries with an optional domain filter, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. With siblings like search_glossary and lookup_term present, an agent would benefit from selection criteria, but none are given. The guidance is minimal and left to inference.

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