lxx_alignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the two alignment directions but omits any behavioral details such as error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid references. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the schema.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys the two modes. Every element 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?

Given the tool's bidirectional complexity and lack of output schema, the description should indicate what the result looks like (e.g., aligned text, verse references, word mappings). It does not, leaving the output unclear. The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the type of reference expected for each direction (Hebrew verse reference vs. Greek Strong's number), which clarifies usage beyond the schema alone.

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's bidirectional functionality: showing LXX Greek for a Hebrew verse and finding Hebrew source for LXX Greek word. It uses specific verbs ('Show', 'find') and identifies the two distinct operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform different lookups or analyses.

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 context by specifying two modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lookup_word or cross_reference tools. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling names.

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