list-glossary-terms

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 mentions pagination and filtering, but fails to state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or describe response structure, rate limits, or sorting defaults. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and key features. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating pagination from filtering) without adding length.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return format, pagination mechanics (cursor vs offset), default limit, or how to interpret before/after. More detail is needed for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining pagination (implicit via 'pagination') and glossary filtering, but does not clarify parameters like fields, parent, include, or extractFields. The baseline for this coverage level is 3, but description does not fully compensate.

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 lists glossary terms, with specific features 'pagination and glossary filtering'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-glossaries (which lists glossaries) and get-glossary-term (single term). The verb 'list' and resource 'glossary terms' are precise.

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 when to use (when listing terms with pagination/filtering) but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives like search-metadata or get-glossary-term. No mention of when not to use or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools is not leveraged.

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