tra_thuat_ngu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning performance, error handling, case sensitivity, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient transparency for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. No extraneous information, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, and with only minimal description of the tool's function, the context is incomplete. Important details such as what the tool returns, how to interpret results, and the effect of 'gioi_han' are missing.

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%, and the tool description does not explain the parameters 'tu' or 'gioi_han'. While 'tu' is likely the term, and 'gioi_han' likely a result limit, no meaning is added beyond the parameter names. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states it is a dictionary lookup tool for Vietnamese-English legal terminology, specifying the verb 'tra' (look up) and the resource 'từ điển thuật ngữ pháp lý Việt–Anh'. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'tra_van_ban' or 'tra_luat', which could have overlapping purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tim_ngu_nghia' or 'tra_van_ban'. The description lacks explicit context for when this tool is appropriate or not.

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