Zippa（ジッパ）

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full page body 'from beginning to end' without paraphrasing, which is useful behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the use cases are specified compactly without restating the schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the scope of the return, and the situations that warrant using it. No critical information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (URL or path, Japanese allowed), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond referring to 'the page,' which is already implied by the tool name and 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the body text of a Zippa page from start to finish. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_pages, search_pages, and site_overview, which cover listing, searching, and overview rather than reading full content.

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 clear when-to-use context: verifying exact wording of feature lists, manual steps, and legal terms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended scenarios are concrete and unambiguous.

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 no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does state scope (pages loaded into Zippa) and output (titles and URLs) and adds a site-map inventory. However, it omits pagination/order behavior despite the limit/offset schema, and doesn't state whether the list is complete or truncated.

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 main function is front-loaded in one sentence, and the semicolon-separated site map is compact. It is slightly long but each path entry adds orientation value for the agent.

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 two-parameter list tool, the description covers the return shape and page inventory, but it leaves pagination semantics and sibling-tool selection unaddressed. There is no output schema to compensate, so those gaps matter.

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 0%, and the description never mentions limit or offset. The parameter names are conventional enough to guess, but the description adds no meaning about how pagination affects the returned list.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it 'returns a list of pages loaded into Zippa (titles and URLs).' It clearly states the output fields, but it never names sibling tools or explicitly contrasts with get_page/search_pages, so it doesn't fully earn the top distinction score.

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 page-content breakdown implies this is for surveying what pages exist, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use search_pages when filtering.' With siblings like search_pages and get_page present, the lack of routing guidance leaves the choice to inference.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results include excerpts and that paraphrase/synonym matching is supported, which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the input schema. It does not detail limits or edge cases, but for a search/read tool 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 front-loaded with the core purposeholistic but then includes background about Zippa's free service and measurement tag, which is not necessary for invoking the tool. The list of searchable content types is useful, but the overall text is longer than needed and dilutes the operational guidance.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema the description should give more detail about the return shape and result limits. It explains what is searched and that excerpts are included, but does not clarify how many results are returned or how the limit parameter affects behavior. Sibling differentiation is partial, relying mostly on the reader to infer differences from 'search'.

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 query parameter is already described in the schema, and the description adds the paraphrase behavior that affects query interpretation. The limit parameter has no schema description and is not mentioned in the description, so the semantics are left to the schema's min/default/max fields rather than enriched by the description. With 50% schema coverage, this is an adequate but incomplete contribution.

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 searches within Zippa pages for matching words and returns excerpts. It enumerates the content areas that can be searched, making the resource scope concreteholistic and distinguishing it from generic search or list tools. The phrase 'まずこれを使ってください' further reinforces its role relative to sibling tools.

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 says to use this tool first when asked about Zippa or site speed improvement, providing clear invocation context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when-to-use / when-not-to-use guide.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool 'returns an overview' and describes the service, which implies a read-only informational call, but it does not explicitly disclose side-effect-free behavior, authentication needs, or output format.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the final sentence gives usage guidance. The middle sentence is a somewhat promotional explanation of Zippa's features, adding context but longer than strictly necessary.

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 no-parameter overview tool, the description covers what it returns and when to use it. It does not detail the exact contents of the returned overview, but the service summary in the description largely compensates.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 opens with '「Zippa（ジッパ）」の概要を返します', naming a specific verb (returns overview) and resource (Zippa). It clearly distinguishes itself from page-level siblings like get_page, list_pages, and search_pages by framing this as a service-level overview rather than a page operation.

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 when to use it: 'どんなサービスかを最初に知りたいときに使います' (use when you first want to know what the service is). This is clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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