thth_topic_context

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

The description explicitly states '読むだけ・副作用なし' (read-only, no side effects), which is valuable behavioral disclosure since no annotations are provided. It also discloses that it 'fixes' judgment inputs and returns either fixed inputs or a URL/JSON shape when the article is missing. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear behavioral contract. It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but for a read-only context tool, the key behaviors are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the most important fact (call first) at the very beginning. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, behavior, fallback behavior, and usage order. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only context tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, its side-effect-free nature, and its fallback behavior when the article is missing. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact structure of the returned 'fixed' judgment inputs, but since there's no output schema and the tool is meant to be called first, the description gives enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the 'article' parameter (article evidence) and 'article_url' (main target when multiple URLs), but it doesn't add much beyond the schema. The description's mention of '記事がまだ無ければ' (if article doesn't exist yet) implies the article parameter is optional, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('呼ぶ' = call), a clear resource (topic context for a manuscript), and a precise position in the workflow ('最初に' = first). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it fixes judgment inputs before topic decisions, and it explicitly contrasts with later steps like evaluate. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 explicitly says to call this tool FIRST before deciding the topic, and it gives the order: context → fetch missing materials → evaluate. It also explains what happens when an article is missing (returns URL and required JSON shape), which tells the agent when to use this tool vs. fetching materials. This is explicit usage guidance with a sequence.

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