get_glossary_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by specifying the return structure: source term, source language, caseSensitive flag, translations, and 'forms' for each target language. This is especially helpful since there is no output 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 compact, front-loads the main action, and uses bullet points for supporting details. Each sentence adds value: the purpose, the parameter status, the entry structure, and the intended use case. No filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 read-only, parameterless listing tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: the scope of results, the data shape, and the canonical use case. Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by outlining the entry fields. No pagination or limit details are needed for a glossary list of this scale.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description explicitly states 'No parameters required,' reinforcing the empty input schema. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description matches that expectation without adding unnecessary detail.

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 opens with a specific verb–resource pair ('list all glossary entries in your SimpleLocalize project'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_translation_keys and get_tags. It also previews the entry structure, removing ambiguity about what 'glossary entries' means in this context.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use it to check how project-specific terms ... should be translated before translating or reviewing texts.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough for a read-only lookup tool.

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