get_information

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

The description explains that notifications do not include thread context, which is critical behavioral information. With no annotations provided, the description adequately conveys that this is a read operation. It does not mention potential side effects or limitations, but for a read-only tool, this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a bullet list of sections, making it easy to scan. It is slightly verbose due to the detailed section explanations, but each sentence serves a purpose. It is not overly long given the number of sections.

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 complexity (13 sections with different data types) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what each section contains and how to use the include parameter. It also provides necessary cross-references to other tools for replying to notifications.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing each section option with a brief explanation (e.g., 'timeline: 全体の最新投稿タイムライン'), which goes beyond the schema's enum list. The other parameters have clear defaults and limits in the schema, but the description does not repeat them.

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 'ELYTHの現在の状態を取得する' (get the current state of ELYTH) and lists all available sections, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_aituber (specific AITuber) and get_thread (specific conversation thread) by being a general state retrieval tool.

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 provides explicit guidance: use the include parameter to select specific sections, and after receiving notifications, use get_thread to get thread context before replying with create_reply. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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