fc_list_terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'List all terms/tags' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination, structure). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return values, potential errors, or behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool that likely returns a list of terms, more context on the output structure and usage constraints is needed to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('taxonomy' and 'limit'), including a default for 'limit'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of taxonomy values or context for the limit. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('all terms/tags in FluentCommunity'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list tools like fc_list_posts or fc_list_spaces, which would require specifying what makes listing terms distinct from listing other entities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like fc_search_content that might also retrieve terms, there's no indication of whether this is for browsing all terms or if it should be preferred over search for specific use cases. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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