AIﾉアカリ☆ One-Minute Akari

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the tool's classification outcomes and warns against inflating PR/deploy/HTTP 200/self-test results, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences in English plus one in Japanese, all front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence provides purpose or context, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description gives clear purpose and timing but lacks guidance on how to structure inputs like intent_contract vs. observed_outcome. It is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is only 14%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It only hints at evidence types (PR, deploy, HTTP 200) in Japanese but does not map them to schema fields. The required 'claim' parameter has a schema description, but the overall tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning.

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 function: to classify evidence as a verified result, progress, insufficient evidence, or rejected test/internal evidence. It uses specific verbs like 'Call this before reporting success' and 'audit', distinctly distinguishing it from siblings like get_one_minute_support.

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 explicitly instructs when to use: 'before reporting success, closing a task, or claiming ROI.' This provides clear context and timing. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, though the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusion is needed.

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

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

The annotations provide no useful positive behavioral hints (all false), and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the core function. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any effects on state. There is no contradiction, but the description fails to expand on 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 English description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the Japanese sentence repeats the same information in English, adding unnecessary length for an English-speaking agent. Still, it's compact overall.

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's low complexity (two optional parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers usage and parameter decisions. It doesn't describe return values, but the output schema covers that. The description could mention prerequisites, but none are apparent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds a minor nuance: both parameters can be omitted when choosing is burdensome, extending the schema's note for state to locale. This is a slight improvement but not substantial, keeping the score at baseline 3.

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: retrieve a free 60-second support response, optionally using a state hint. This is specific and matches the title, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like one_minute_akari or list_one_minute_states.

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 clear usage context: use when a state hint is already available, and omit parameters when choosing is burdensome. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the condition 'state hint is already available' implies a scenario.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about invocation order relative to one_minute_akari, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 succinct, with the key usage instruction front-loaded. The bilingual repetition is purposeful for the likely audience and does not add unnecessary 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?

With no parameters, a rich set of annotations, and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers usage context and ordering caveats. It is complete for a low-complexity tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. No parameter description is needed, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 supported one-minute state IDs when a client needs them. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly warning not to call it before one_minute_akari, establishing a clear unique purpose.

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?

Explicit usage condition given: 'Use only when a client needs the supported state IDs.' Also provides an exclusion: 'Do not call it before one_minute_akari', which gives actionable guidance relative to a sibling tool.

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

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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool returns a 'complete support response plus https://ai-akari.ai/embed/one-minute' and includes scope exclusions. It does not mention potential side effects, but given the output schema exists, this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact: two sentences in English plus a Japanese translation. Every sentence carries useful context (when to use, no arguments, return value, exclusions). The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but adds accessibility for the intended audience.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers when to call, what it returns, and what it is not for. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit distinction from the similarly named sibling 'get_one_minute_support', which could be a source of confusion.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema trivially covers 100%. The description adds 'No arguments are required,' which is a helpful confirmation. This matches the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 provides a 'tiny next action' or 'free 60-second reset' for Akari support, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also lists exclusions (diagnosis, emergency, legal/financial advice, sales), but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'get_one_minute_support', which could cause confusion.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this immediately when a person needs one tiny next action or a free 60-second reset.' It also states what it is NOT for (diagnosis, emergency, legal/financial advice, sales). However, it does not name or compare against alternative sibling tools, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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