個人サイトの一覧を発掘

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool collects across pages and aggregates by user site, and that it is the main tool for finding sites not in search engines. It does not mention rate limits or return format, but the aggregation behavior and comparison to CDX search provide substantive behavioral context.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: it states the core function, gives examples, compares to a sibling tool, and states its strategic importance. It is dense, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (a site-level list) and provides example usage. It covers the main context (Geocities areas, 90s personal pages) and differentiates from sibling tools. A minor gap is that it does not describe the structure of the returned list, but overall it is context-rich.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces how the url prefix is interpreted and that results are grouped by site, but it does not add new per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It earns a solid baseline score without exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb '列挙する' (enumerate) and clearly specifies the resource: personal sites under a host/area. It explicitly contrasts with wayback_cdx_search (file-level vs site-level), making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for discovering unknown 90s personal sites by specifying a host or area. It names the alternative (wayback_cdx_search) and explains why that alternative is less suitable (file-level results get buried). This is clear, actionable guidance.

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