vocabulary

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

The description explains actions and parameters, but since no annotations are provided, it carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. The examples suggest it is query-oriented, but behavior beyond parameter descriptions is sparse.

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 well-structured with a header, bulleted actions, parameter list, and examples. It is slightly verbose but efficiently conveys necessary information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with multiple actions and six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers actions and parameters thoroughly. It lacks details about return format and potential errors, but is sufficient for typical use.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter (action, term, target, locale, source_locale, target_locales), providing defaults, and showing usage via examples. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Glyphs UI terminology translation' and lists four specific actions (translate, search, mapping, categories) with distinct functions. It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'handbook' by focusing on translation tasks.

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?

Examples provide typical usage scenarios, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'handbook' or when not to use it. The description implies usage through action definitions but lacks exclusion criteria.

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