sukimalabo-tester

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

As a read-only tool with no annotations, the description adequately indicates it returns information, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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?

Two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded; every word serves a purpose.

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 parameterless info retrieval tool, the description fully defines the output scope (overview, pricing, mechanism) and context within the platform.

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 no parameters, the description adds no parameter details, but this is acceptable given the baseline score of 4 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 returns the overview, pricing, and mechanism of a specific service, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'how_to_get_testers' and 'list_recruiting_apps'.

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 for obtaining service information, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies that the tool provides explanatory information (by using 'explains'), but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only informational tool or describe the output format. More transparency about the nature of the response would be beneficial.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information (what the tool does and when to use it). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 parameters, no output schema, and is informational in nature, the description is largely complete. However, it could be improved by specifying the output format (e.g., textual guide) to give the agent full context.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the tool, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 that the tool explains how to gather testers for Google Play's closed testing, specifying the target audience (app individual developers) and the specific need (how to gather testers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service_info and list_recruiting_apps, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool: when an individual app developer wants to know how to gather testers. This provides clear context and helps the agent select the correct tool among siblings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation (returning a list) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as caching, real-time-ness, authentication, or rate limits. For a simple list tool this is minimally adequate.

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 in Japanese, front-loading the core action and user. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the tool's purpose and target users. It omits output structure details, but '一覧' implies a list, which is acceptable for a simple 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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage with no descriptive fields. Following the baseline guidance for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description has no parameters to add meaning to.

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 returns a list of apps currently recruiting testers, using a specific verb ('返す' - return) and resource ('アプリ一覧' - app list). It differentiates from siblings 'get_service_info' and 'how_to_get_testers' by focusing on active listings.

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 explicitly states the tool is for people who want to join as testers to see which apps are available, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like the sibling tools.

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