poker_proposeDetector

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. '提案します' (proposes) suggests a creation or submission action, but it doesn't clarify whether this is a write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the vague action verb.

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 - a single Japanese sentence. While it's under-informative, it doesn't waste words or bury information. Every word directly relates to the tool's purpose, making it structurally efficient despite its content deficiencies.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a detector is, what proposing one achieves, how it relates to other poker tools, or what the expected outcome is. The combination of missing behavioral context and lack of purpose differentiation makes this inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description provides zero information about parameters. However, the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 5 parameters are documented in the schema itself (name, origin, grid, transform, show_path_trace). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate even though the description adds no parameter semantics.

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 '新しい検出器を提案します' (proposes a new detector) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'poker_proposeDetector' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what a 'detector' is in this context, what proposing entails (creation? configuration?), or how this differs from sibling tools like 'poker_proposeBody' or 'poker_proposeSource'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple 'propose' tools in the sibling list (proposeBody, proposeSource, proposeTransform, etc.), but no indication of what distinguishes proposing a detector from proposing other entities. No prerequisites, constraints, or use cases are mentioned.

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