設定を取得

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's '取得' is consistent. The description adds some context about valid key sets per category but no further behavioral caveats such as auth requirements, return shape, or side effects. It stays within the safety profile already conveyed by annotations.

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 sentence followed by a compact example. It front-loads the main action and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 3-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, it never mentions set_settings as the write alternative and does not hint at the return structure (no output schema exists). These minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a valuable mapping between category values and valid keys (picture vs sound), showing how the required parameters interact. This goes beyond the schema's simple property descriptions.

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 states the specific verb '取得する' (retrieve) and resource 'システム設定' (system settings), then gives concrete category/keys examples. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set_settings, which would be the write counterpart.

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 implies usage through examples (e.g., category=picture keys=[brightness,contrast,backlight,color,pictureMode]) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_settings, nor any exclusions. Usage context is present but not fully elaborated.

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