poker_proposeBuildupFactor

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 'proposes' a buildup factor, which implies a non-destructive, suggestion-generating operation, but it does not clarify whether this is a calculation, recommendation, or estimation, what the output might look like (e.g., numerical value, report), or any constraints like computational requirements. The description is too vague to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, making it efficient with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary details for clarity and completeness. It is front-loaded but too brief to be fully helpful, so it scores a 4 for structure but loses points for insufficient content.

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 implied by parameters related to corrections in a technical domain (likely radiation or physics), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a buildup factor is, the context of its use, what the tool returns, or how parameters influence the result. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, the description fails to provide adequate context for effective use.

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, with clear parameter definitions: 'material' (material name), 'use_finite_medium_correction' (whether to use finite medium correction), and 'use_slant_correction' (whether to use slant correction). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters affect the proposal or providing examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'ビルドアップ係数を提案します' (proposes a buildup factor) restates the tool name 'poker_proposeBuildupFactor' almost verbatim, making it tautological. While it indicates the tool suggests something related to buildup factors, it lacks specificity about what a buildup factor is, what domain this applies to (e.g., radiation physics, engineering), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'poker_changeOrderBuildupFactor' or 'poker_updateBuildupFactor'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during simulation setup), or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'poker_changeOrderBuildupFactor' or 'poker_updateBuildupFactor', leaving the agent with no information to make an informed choice among related tools.

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