study_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('読むだけ'), that it works with unverified declarations ('未検証'), and that it does not prove causal effects or post approval. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not address return values or data-access implications.

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?

Three short Japanese sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by exclusions and a clear read-only marker. Every sentence earns its place and the definition is easy to scan.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: parameter semantics are absent, and the meaning of '本人の観測' is vague. The purpose and non-goals are stated, but an agent cannot confidently construct a valid call without more parameter detail.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'file' can be inferred as the local JSON input, but 'min_n' is completely opaque. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to help an agent populate them correctly.

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 names a specific resource ('ローカル施策JSON') and a specific action ('結ぶ' / link adoption declarations with observations), and adds exclusions ('proposedは集計せず'). This makes the core function reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate a sibling tool like analytics_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 gives clear context: it is a read-only linking/reporting tool for local policy JSON. It also states when not to use it as evidence ('adoptedも因果効果や投稿承認を証明しない') and that proposed items are not aggregated. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement, but the context is sufficient.

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