list_sparks

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

No annotations exist, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether filtering by category is supported, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description only states what the tool does without any behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence in Japanese that delivers the core purpose efficiently. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool has no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a Spark is, what the output contains, or how it relates to other tools like run_spark. Context is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

The input schema already describes the single optional parameter 'category' with a brief description. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 '利用可能なSpark一覧' clearly states the tool lists available Sparks. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_sessions, list_sheets, or list_members, leaving ambiguity about which list tool to use for Sparks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given multiple sibling list tools, an agent would need explicit context for selection.

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