Determine the Japanese school stage, grade, and subject for a given knowledge item or term; use MEXT curriculum codes when available and return candidates if ambiguous.
日本の学校教育において、指定した知識・用語・解法が主にどの学校段階・学年・教科で扱われるかを判定します。文部科学省の正規化済み学習指導要領コード表が利用可能な場合はそれを優先します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 曖昧な場合に返す候補数 | |
| query | Yes | 判定したい知識、用語、解法、文法事項など |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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 discloses one behavioral trait (prioritizing the MEXT code table if available), but omits critical details such as whether the operation is read-only, how ambiguous cases are resolved, or what confidence or ranking the output contains.
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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, and the second adds a relevant caveat about data source priority. It is compact with no wasted words, though the caveat could be integrated more tightly.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch the return format or confidence behavior. It does not describe what the output looks like (e.g., a ranked list of scopes), nor does it explain how the limit parameter affects ambiguous cases, leaving a significant gap for an agent invoking the tool.
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 already fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.
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 specific verb (判定します) and resource (specified knowledge/term in Japanese school education), clarifying it determines the school stage/grade/subject. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_answer_scope, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to understand the core function.
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 mentions prioritizing the MEXT normalized curriculum code table when available, but this is a data-source preference rather than a when-to-use guideline. It offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as check_answer_scope or search_curriculum.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.