thth_topic_evaluate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does substantial work: it reveals the tool is evaluator-only (no candidate creation or ranking), that it merely reports deficiencies ("足りないものを言うだけ"), and that unsuitable candidates trigger a re-comparison request rather than silent fallback. These are genuine behavioral traits beyond what the name conveys. It does not state side-effect status or return format, but the disclosure is strong for an unannotated tool.

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 sentences with no wasted repetition; the core action and all four evaluation criteria are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the bold markers aid scannability. The em-dash aside ("足りないものを言うだけ") is slightly stylistic but earns its place by clarifying the tool's evaluator-only nature. Compact and well ordered.

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?

The description covers purpose, the four evaluation criteria, and failure behavior, and even hints at output content (the deficiencies it finds). But with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without response-format information, and two of the four parameters ('file', 'article_url') remain unexplained. For a tool with nested object parameters, these are material unknowns.

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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate. It maps 'article' to 記事本文 and 'proposal' to 候補比較, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, 'file' and 'article_url' are never mentioned in the description, leaving the agent to guess what 'file' represents and how it relates to 'article' and 'article_url' — a significant gap at this coverage level.

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 concrete action (検査させる — inspect/evaluate) applied to a clear resource (article text + candidate comparison), and enumerates four specific criteria: citation presence, reference existence, observation novelty, and poster bias. It also carves out what the tool is not ("候補を作らないし順位も付けない"), which differentiates it behaviorally from nearby topic tools. It stops short of naming a specific sibling, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Usage context is implied: call this when you have an article and a candidate comparison to validate, and the final sentence prescribes the follow-up when a candidate is unsuitable (request re-comparison rather than expect promotion), which is a useful workflow directive. However, no sibling is named as an alternative, and there are no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use conditions relative to plausible siblings like thth_topic_decision or thth_topic_context.

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