Generate activity snapshots from local approved-post ledger, reporting period, sample size, missing data, and optional prior-period comparison. Read-only; no recommendations.
自分の活動のスナップショットを期間・母数・欠測・根拠つきで返す。ローカル台帳を読むだけ。compare_previous=trueで前期間比較。推奨は含まない
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | ||
| min_n | No | 中央値の最小母数（既定5） | |
| account | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| window_days | No | 直近何日（既定7） | |
| compare_previous | No | 直前の同じ日数との比較（既定false） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states 'ローカル台帳を読むだけ' (read-only, no side effects), describes output dimensions, and explains the compare_previous toggle. It omits auth/error detail, but for a read-only reporting tool the behavioral picture is fairly clear.
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 three short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded, followed by the read-only guarantee, the comparison option, and the exclusion of recommendations. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description carries extra responsibility. It communicates the main output dimensions, read-only nature, and comparison behavior, but it does not describe output structure, how account/project scope the snapshot, or edge behavior of compare_previous. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds meaningful context for compare_previous ('compare_previous=trueで前期間比較') and relates output concepts to period/sample size. However, parameters like 'by', 'account', and 'project' remain under-explained, and the description does not fully compensate for the schema gaps.
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 uses a specific verb '返す' and resource '自分の活動のスナップショット', and clarifies scope with '期間・母数・欠測・根拠つき'. It also distinguishes itself from recommendation-style tools via '推奨は含まない', though it does not name sibling alternatives like study_report.
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 when to use it: when a read-only snapshot of one's own activity is needed, and explicitly notes it is not a recommendation tool. However, it does not state explicit conditions, exclusions, or point to alternative sibling tools, so usage guidance remains more implied than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.