Returns the supported education scope limits to pass to check_answer_scope, helping you validate grade, stage, and subject boundaries before checking answers.
check_answer_scope で指定できる教育範囲の上限一覧を返します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. The verb '返します' implies a read-only listing operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, absence of mutations, or any auth/rate-limit characteristics. It is minimally adequate for a simple 0-parameter helper.
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 with no wasted words, front-loading what is returned and the consuming tool. Appropriate for a simple 0-parameter listing tool.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its relationship to check_answer_scope. It does not specify the return format (e.g., array of scope identifiers), which would be helpful but is not strictly required for this low-complexity 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description adds no misleading parameter information.
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 ('返します' / returns) and resource ('教育範囲の上限一覧' / list of educational scope limits), and explicitly ties it to check_answer_scope. This distinguishes it from siblings such as classify_knowledge_scope and check_answer_scope itself.
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?
It implies usage by naming check_answer_scope as the consumer of the returned scopes, so an agent can infer this should be called to discover valid inputs. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or ordering guidance relative to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.