list_one_minute_statesUse only when a client needs the supported state IDs. Do not call it before one_minute_akari. Japanese: 状態ID一覧が必要な開発者向けです。最初の一回には使わず one_minute_akari を呼んでください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| states | Yes | ||
| guidance | Yes | ||
| safety_boundary | Yes |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two support tools, one_minute_akari and get_one_minute_support, are functionally similar and could be confused, although their descriptions clarify when to use each. The other tools are distinct.
Most tool names follow a verb_ prefix pattern (audit_, get_, list_), but one_minute_akari breaks the convention and audit_result_claim is structurally inconsistent. Overall, the naming is readable but not fully uniform.
Four tools is a reasonable number for a focused support service. The count is not inflated, though the two overlapping support tools could potentially be consolidated.
The toolkit covers the core lifecycle of providing support, listing supported states, and auditing result claims. Minor gaps like updating states are outside the apparent domain and not critical.