where_to_appear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful context by saying the tool returns a search list with personal history overlaid and that the caller makes the final decision, implying it is not autonomous. It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or output details, but the described behavior appears read-only and intentional.

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 trigger first, then the behavior, then the caller's role. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant text.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin: it gives a trigger and a general return shape but does not explain list format, ordering, limit behavior, or how account/project selection affects history. Still, the schema covers parameters and the intended workflow is understandable enough for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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 baseline is 3 and the description does not need to restate parameter details. The phrase 'この語・この相手' adds a conceptual tie between parameters and the tool's purpose, but it does not clarify limit, recent, account, or project beyond what the schema already says.

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 behavior: it overlays the user's own history onto a search list and returns it, for use before deciding where to appear. This is clear enough as a read/query operation, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as thth_topic_decision or thth_board.

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 phrase '絡みに行く先を選ぶ前に呼ぶ' gives an explicit trigger condition: call this before choosing where to engage. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better alternative, so the guidance is contextual but not contrastive.

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