poker_proposeSource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a creation/mutation operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. The single sentence provides no behavioral context beyond the vague verb 'propose'.

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?

While technically concise with one short sentence, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide essential context that would help an agent understand and use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 complexity (7 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'source' is in this domain, what 'proposing' entails, or what the expected outcome is. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on this description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 when the schema does all the work.

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 '新しい線源を提案します' (proposes a new source) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'poker_proposeSource' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of source (radiation source in a physics context) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'poker_proposeBody' or 'poker_proposeDetector'.

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, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'poker_updateSource' or 'poker_deleteSource'. The agent receives zero usage instructions.

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