poker_getUnit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions '完全性保証' (completeness guarantee) which adds some behavioral context about reliability. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no unit settings exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence that efficiently communicates both the action and the guarantee. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. The Japanese text is direct and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 output schema), the description is reasonably complete for a basic retrieval operation. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally specify the return format more clearly (e.g., structure of the 4 keys). The 'completeness guarantee' adds value but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there's no parameter documentation needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. With 100% schema description coverage (though empty properties), the baseline would be 3, but for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is justified as the description correctly indicates no parameters are required.

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: '現在の単位設定を取得します' (get current unit settings) and specifies it returns all four keys. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieval rather than creation/update/deletion operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'poker_validateUnitIntegrity' which might also involve unit checking.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to sibling tools like 'poker_updateUnit' or 'poker_proposeUnit'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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