get_glossary_entries

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that each entry includes the source term, source language, and translations for all target languages, plus it confirms no parameters are required.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds scope, entry content, or usage guidance. There is no filler or repetition beyond a useful confirmation of zero parameters.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description provides everything needed to invoke it and interpret results: it lists all glossary entries, describes what each entry contains, and states when to use it. No output schema exists, but the return semantics are sufficiently covered.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema already marks this clearly. The description reinforces 'No parameters required,' so there is no need for it to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 ('list') and resource ('all glossary entries') scoped to the user's SimpleLocalize project. It clearly identifies what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from the create/delete glossary entry siblings.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context: use it to check project-specific terminology before translating or reviewing texts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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