status

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 states the tool checks connection status and version, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'connection status' entails (e.g., online/offline, latency), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description lacks details about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('確認する') and resource ('Yomitan APIの接続状態とバージョン'). Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks context about when to use it, what the output might contain, or behavioral details. For a status-check tool, more information about expected results or usage scenarios would improve completeness, but it's adequate for a basic operation.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. It adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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's purpose: '確認する' (check/verify) the '接続状態とバージョン' (connection status and version) of the 'Yomitan API'. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource being checked. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lookup' or 'tokenize', which appear to be different operations rather than status checks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or context for usage. For example, it doesn't indicate whether this should be used before other operations or as a diagnostic tool. With sibling tools like 'lookup' and 'tokenize', there's no comparison or exclusion criteria provided.

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