ミロンド (Mirondo)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns details but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal.

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 concise sentence in Japanese, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and result. However, it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 get-tool operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the returned fields (description, conditions, license, URL). It is fairly complete, though it omits error behavior. Contextual completeness is good given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which is described as 'tool id (included in search_ai_tools results)'. The tool description adds context about returning fields but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 details of one tool, listing specific fields (description, conditions, license, URL). It is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling search_ai_tools (which returns a list) and verification_summary.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly say 'use this after search_ai_tools to get full details' or exclude inappropriate contexts. The description is only about what it does, not when to use it.

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 discloses that the tool only returns confirmed-accessible, free, Japanese-usable tools and lists filter dimensions. However, it does not describe the return format (list of names? IDs?), pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or how multiple filters combine (AND/OR). Basic transparency but not comprehensive.

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 sentences: first states the main action and resource, second adds constraints and available filter dimensions. Front-loaded with the most critical information. No wasted words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should hint at the return format or result behavior. It does not. It also does not explain how multiple filter parameters interact (AND/OR). However, it covers the core capability and the schema covers all parameters. Adequate but with notable gaps for a search tool with 8 optional parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the schema by listing the filter criteria in natural language (e.g., 'コマンド入力の要否' for no_terminal), but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. No extra value.

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 for free AI tools available in Japanese, with a specific verb '検索する' and resource '無料AIツール'. It also adds distinguishing constraints like '実際に開けることを確認済み' (confirmed accessible), which differentiates it from siblings like get_ai_tool (likely for single tool details).

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 lists the filter criteria, implying this tool is used when you need to find tools meeting those conditions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names (get_ai_tool, verification_summary) provide contextual cues. More explicit guidance would be better.

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 full burden for behavior disclosure. It only states that the tool 'returns results' without indicating whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or any rate limitations. The content description is partial but lacks important 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?

The description is a single sentence that packs multiple output components, making it relatively concise. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or separators that would improve readability. It is front-loaded with the main action but could be organized better.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole documentation. It provides a high-level summary of return contents but fails to specify data types, structure, or formatting. For a tool returning complex verification details, this is insufficient for an agent to reliably parse the result.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (vacuous). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what the tool returns, which is sufficient context 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 clearly states the tool returns verification work results, listing specific outputs: number of unopenable trial pages, license restriction count and breakdown, and withdrawn items with reasons. This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings get_ai_tool and search_ai_tools, 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, without mentioning appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or cases where a sibling tool would be better. This omission leaves the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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