get_glossary

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. 'Get details' indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what 'details' means, potential errors, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple get but lacks depth.

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 with no redundant words. However, it could include more useful information without losing conciseness, such as mentioning the fields parameter or return type.

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 simple get-entity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on the return value (shape of 'details'), error behavior, and what the fields parameter does.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only mentions 'by ID' for glossary_id. The 'fields' parameter (default null) is unexplained—there's no hint on allowed values or usage. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 'Get details of a specific glossary by ID' specifies the verb (Get) and the resource (glossary) with a clear identifier (ID). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_glossary_by_name' (by name) and 'list_glossaries' (list all), making the purpose 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 usage when a glossary ID is available, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'get_glossary_by_name' or 'list_glossaries'. No exclusions or context are provided, so guidance is merely implied.

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