音量を上げる

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect (raise volume by one step) but does not mention behavior at maximum volume, whether the volume belongs to the device or current app, or whether the operation can silently fail. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is under-specified.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and increment. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, so this is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and full schema coverage, so the minimal description is mostly usable. However, with no annotations and no edge-case or alternative routing information, an agent cannot fully anticipate volume-cap behavior or confirm which device is affected without assuming defaults.

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 sole parameter device is fully documented in the schema, including its type, meaning, and default fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear action (上げる) and resource (音量) with an explicit increment qualifier (1 段階), so an agent knows this tool changes volume by one step rather than setting an arbitrary level. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like set_volume or send_key, but the increment is a meaningful distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus volume_down, set_volume, or send_key. An agent must infer from the name and description that this is the incremental increase tool, which is not enough for confident selection among similar volume/media tools.

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