Wakidokoro — Chiikawa episode guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses that no state is committed ("This only makes a draft"), that the response contains the draft, terms and a token, and that both must be shown to the user. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, and the legal meaning of "terms" is left unspecified, so not quite complete.

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 two-step framing and the draft-only caveat are front-loaded, and the conditional field map is packed into dense but purposeful clauses with no filler. The middle sentence is long and slash-delimited, which costs a little scannability, but nothing is redundant.

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 12-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: it explains the write is deferred, describes the return payload shape, and documents the conditional parameter branches. Remaining gaps (what the terms are, whether the episode identifier accepts a status id vs a number) are minor and partly covered by schema descriptions.

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 17% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does for the core branch map: title/summary/translation map to the wrong-text and corrected-text fields, characters to the add/remove lists, arc to an id from list_arcs, number to the episode number, other to a single sentence. It adds no meaning for episode_id_or_number, panel number, or the mandatory acknowledgment boolean, leaving a few gaps the schema alone must cover.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource ("privately telling the site operator about a factual error in one episode's page") and states the scope constraint "one point per report." The phrase "Step 1 of 2" plus the explicit contrast with send_confirmed_error_report makes it distinguishable from that sibling without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative (send_confirmed_error_report) and the precise condition that selects it: only after showing the draft and terms to the user and only if they say yes. It also gives explicit per-branch instructions for which fields to fill, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs for a polymorphic 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 no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose return structure (nested chapters/episodes in order). It says nothing about what happens for an unknown id, whether the response is filtered by locale, or the read-only nature of the call – all inferable but not stated.

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?

A single economical sentence with no wasted words, and the key fact (arc plus ordered chapters/episodes) is front-loaded. It is grammatically a fragment rather than a full statement, which slightly reduces clarity without adding noise.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description gives a partial picture of the return shape (ordered chapters and episodes) but omits other likely fields. Adequate but not complete enough to predict the payload.

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%, and both parameters are well documented there, including the locale enum and the note that non-ja locales only include translated episodes. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource ('One story arc') and what comes back with it ('its chapters and episodes in order'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_arcs by being singular and scoped to one arc. The missing piece is an explicit verb – it reads as a noun phrase, leaving the retrieval action implied by the name get_arc.

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 select this over get_episode, get_character, or list_arcs; the only routing hint ('Arc id from list_arcs') lives in the schema, not the description. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the follow-up to list_arcs.

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 supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by disclosing the shape of the returned profile (counts, appearance range, co-occurrence, typical episodes), but it says nothing about lookup failure behavior, ambiguous-name handling, or whether results are cached/paginated.

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, zero filler: the first front-loads what the profile contains, the second handles the input-language ambiguity. Nothing is repeated from the schema or restated from the title.

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?

Low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, and the description does explain what comes back, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It could be stronger by covering not-found or ambiguous-name behavior, but for a simple read lookup it is essentially complete.

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 50%, and the undocumented parameter is the required `name`. The description compensates well by stating the name may be in any language and giving concrete examples in Japanese, romaji, and Chinese characters, which resolves real ambiguity in how to supply the value. The `locale` parameter is already documented in the schema, so no further credit is needed there.

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 names a specific resource (a character's profile in the catalog) and enumerates the payload fields: post count, first/latest appearance, most frequent co-appearances, and typical episodes. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_episode or get_arc, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. use get_episode for episode-level detail), and no statement about preconditions or what happens if the character is unknown. The only usage-adjacent hint is that names are accepted in any language, which is really parameter semantics rather than tool selection.

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 exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load; 'Get' signals a read-only operation and the field list hints at the response shape. It does not disclose error behavior when both optional keys are omitted, or whether id takes precedence over number.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the lookup keys first and the returned fields second, with no filler wording.

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 output schema, enumerating returned fields (title, date, summary, characters, arc, links) is genuinely useful. However, the unusual schema (zero required parameters, two alternative keys) is left unexplained, which is the main gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 already documents id, number, and locale. The description only adds that the id is a post id / X status id and that number is a manga episode number, which is largely duplicated from the schema; it adds no guidance on the id-vs-number precedence.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one episode') plus the two lookup keys (post id or manga episode number) and enumerates the returned fields. That clearly separates it from list-style siblings like search_episodes and latest_episodes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implies the single-record lookup case by describing the two key types, but never states when to prefer this over search_episodes or latest_episodes, nor what to do if neither id nor number is supplied.

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 behavioral burden, yet it only discloses sort order. It says nothing about whether the list is paginated, whether unpublished or untranslated episodes are excluded, or what happens when limit exceeds available episodes.

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?

It is a single short sentence fragment with no wasted words, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tight, informative phrasing. There is no structure to front-load because almost nothing is said.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back and how the tool behaves, and it does neither. For a listing tool an agent needs to know the returned fields and any filtering of untranslated episodes, none of which appear here.

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 100%, so limit and locale are already fully documented in the schema, including the default 10 / max 20 cap and the meaning of each locale. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which meets the 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 names the resource (episodes) and the ordering (newest first), which adds a small amount beyond the tool name 'latest_episodes'. However, it is close to a restatement of the name and never says what an episode record contains or how 'newest' is determined, so it does not clearly differentiate itself from siblings like get_episode or search_episodes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. The description never says to prefer this over search_episodes for a simple recency listing, nor does it mention any precondition or exclusion.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the scope and that episode counts are returned, but it does not state read-only safety, ordering, pagination behavior, or how the locale affects which arcs are listed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the scope and one key return attribute efficiently.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core scope and return summary. However, with no annotations or output schema, it is minimally complete and leaves out ordering, completeness, and behavioral details an agent might want.

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 locale parameter has 100% schema description coverage with a detailed enum explanation, including defaults and translation behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema baseline of 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 states the resource and scope clearly: it returns all multi-part story arcs with episode counts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_arc tool, but the word 'All' and the list_arcs name make the listing purpose understandable.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use list_arcs instead of get_arc, search_episodes, or latest_episodes. 'All multi-part story arcs' implies enumeration, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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 carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose the ranking behavior (lexical matches before semantic near-matches), which is real behavioral context. It omits return shape, whether a relevance score is included, and any pagination/limits beyond the schema's max of 20.

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, no filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the ranking rule follows as supporting detail. Nothing redundant with the schema is restated.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers capability, query style, language scope, and result ordering. Only the shape of returned results is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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% and the locale enum is fully documented in the schema, so the description needn't repeat it. The phrase "in any language" loosely reinforces locale but adds no syntax or format detail for query or limit beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Chiikawa episodes") plus the searchable dimensions (words, scenes, feelings) and language scope, with concrete example queries. This clearly separates it from get_episode, latest_episodes, and get_arc without naming them.

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 examples imply when the tool fits (fuzzy/topical queries) and the description says word matches rank first, but it never states when NOT to use it or points to the alternative for a known episode ID or for browsing recent episodes. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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 carries the burden and does disclose that this is an irreversible outward send gated on explicit human consent and a legal terms agreement — exactly the behavior an agent must know. It stops short of stating whether the draft token is single-use, whether retries are safe, or what failure modes occur, which leaves residual ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the step sequencing and ending on the hard safety constraint. Every clause corresponds to a real precondition; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers sequencing, consent gating, and the no-autonomous-call rule. The gaps are the unmentioned copyright waiver parameter and post-send semantics such as token reuse, which for a legal-consent send action would be worth spelling out.

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 only implicitly covers two of the four parameters (the draft token and the user's confirmation/terms agreement). The required copyright-assignment and moral-rights-waiver consent is never mentioned in the prose, leaving an agent to discover that legal commitment only from the schema's const:true field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('send a draft from draft_error_report') and pins the sequence with 'Step 2 of 2', which makes it unambiguously distinct from its sibling draft_error_report. An agent can identify the action without reading the schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (user has seen that exact draft and the terms, said to send it, agreed to the terms) and an explicit prohibition ('Never call it on your own'). The alternative, step 1, is named by reference to draft_error_report, so the routing decision is fully determined.

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