Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• dungeon_infoC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('取得します'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this explicitly or mention other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what '詳細情報' (detailed information) specifically includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by hinting at the type of information returned.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the context: no annotations, no output schema, and a read-focused tool with 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '詳細情報' includes (e.g., monsters, rewards, difficulty), whether it's safe to call repeatedly, or how errors are handled. For a tool in a game/dungeon context with siblings like 'start_dungeon', more guidance is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('dungeon_id' and 'save_key') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the purpose of 'save_key' or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states '特定のダンジョンの詳細情報を取得します' (Get detailed information for a specific dungeon), which provides a clear verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('ダンジョンの詳細情報' - detailed dungeon information). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_dungeons' or 'start_dungeon', which also involve dungeon-related operations. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to list dungeons first), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'list_dungeons' or 'check_progress'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

• list_dungeonsC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing dungeons and their information, but does not describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication via 'save_key', potential rate limits, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. The structure is clear but minimal.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a tool that lists dungeons with information, no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like data format, pagination, or error handling, and it lacks differentiation from sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'save_key' documented as 'セーブキー' (save key). The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a save key is or how it's used. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's purpose ('list all available dungeons and their information'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('dungeons'), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dungeon_info' or 'start_dungeon', leaving ambiguity about scope or differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'dungeon_info' (which might get details for a specific dungeon) or 'start_dungeon' (which might initiate an adventure).

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

• start_dungeonC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the activity is time-based and requires later checking, which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens upon invocation. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise with two sentences that convey key information without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main action, but the second sentence could be more integrated to improve flow. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool likely involves mutation (starting an activity) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it interacts with other tools like 'check_progress'. For a tool with 2 required parameters and potential side effects, more context is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 both parameters ('dungeon_id' and 'save_key') with descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's purpose as 'starts dungeon exploration' and mentions it's a time-based activity, which provides basic clarity. However, it doesn't specify what resources are affected or how this differs from similar tools like 'init_game' or 'check_progress', making it somewhat vague rather than specific.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description mentions that this is a time-based activity requiring later checking, which implies some context, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'init_game' for starting a game or 'check_progress' for monitoring. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

• check_progressC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking progress and processing results if completed, which hints at read and possible write operations, but doesn't clarify critical traits: whether it's safe (e.g., read-only vs. modifies data), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., auto-saves), or handles errors. For a tool with potential mutation ('処理します' - process results) and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences in Japanese. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds conditional behavior. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly separating purpose and usage). It efficiently communicates core functionality without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (dungeon progress checking with potential result processing), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '進行状況' (progress) includes (e.g., steps completed, time elapsed), how results are processed (e.g., rewards awarded, state updates), or the return format. For a tool that might involve both read and write operations, more detail is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'save_key' (described as 'セーブキー' - save key), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't explain what 'save_key' represents in context (e.g., a game save identifier), its format, or how it relates to dungeon progress, so it doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '現在のダンジョン探索の進行状況を確認します。完了している場合は結果を処理します。' (Check the current dungeon exploration progress. If completed, process the results). It specifies the verb ('確認します' - check/confirm) and resource ('ダンジョン探索の進行状況' - dungeon exploration progress), making it distinct from siblings like 'start_dungeon' or 'list_dungeons'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'view_status' might overlap in checking status), so it's not a perfect 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It implies usage during or after dungeon exploration ('現在のダンジョン探索' - current dungeon exploration), but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must have started a dungeon), exclusions (e.g., don't use if no dungeon is active), or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'view_status' for general player status). Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it falls short of higher scores.

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

• equip_holding_itemC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It implies this is a mutation (equipping changes state) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's reversible, side effects, or response format. The examples hint at item effects but don't explain how equipping affects gameplay.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately concise with two sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides helpful examples of holding items. However, it could be more front-loaded by integrating the examples into the purpose statement for better clarity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what happens after equipping (e.g., effects on status, inventory changes), error conditions, or interaction with other tools like 'view_inventory'. The examples add some context but don't compensate for the overall gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as how item_id relates to inventory or the significance of save_key. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('装備します' - equip) and resource ('持ち物' - holding item) from the inventory. It distinguishes from 'equip_item' by specifying it's for holding items (consumables/accessories) rather than equipment, though it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling 'unequip_holding_item'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'equip_item' or 'unequip_holding_item'. It mentions examples of holding items (herbs for HP recovery, charms for event avoidance) but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or constraints for usage.

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

• equip_itemC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states the action ('equip') but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., stat changes, slot usage), permissions, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is brief and to the point with two sentences. It efficiently conveys the core action and a usage tip without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be more structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral effects, error handling, and what happens post-equip (e.g., stat updates). The reference to 'view_inventory' helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by linking 'item_id' to 'view_inventory', but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('equip') and resource ('item from inventory'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'equip_holding_item' or 'unequip_item', but the mention of 'inventory' provides some implicit distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides minimal guidance by referencing 'view_inventory' to find item IDs, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'equip_holding_item' or 'unequip_item'. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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

• view_battle_logC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it displays battle logs but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific game state (active dungeon), what format the logs are in, or if there are any limitations (e.g., only recent logs). The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence in Japanese, efficiently conveying the core purpose without waste. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource. However, it could be more structured if it included brief usage notes.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., log format, success/failure), any side effects, or dependencies on game state. For a tool with potential complexity in a gaming context, more detail is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter (save_key) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what save_key represents or how to obtain it). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('表示します' - display/show) and the resource ('詳細な戦闘ログ' - detailed battle log) with context ('探索中のダンジョン' - dungeon being explored). It distinguishes from siblings like view_inventory or view_status by specifying battle logs, but doesn't explicitly contrast with check_progress or dungeon_info which might overlap.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_progress or dungeon_info. The description implies it's for viewing battle logs during dungeon exploration, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must be in a dungeon) or exclusions (e.g., not for post-dungeon analysis).

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

• view_inventoryC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('display all items in inventory') without mentioning whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about key behavioral traits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a tool that likely returns inventory data, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral context, and with no annotations or output schema, the agent has minimal information to work with. This makes it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'save_key' fully documented in the schema as 'セーブキー' (save key). The description adds no additional meaning or context about this parameter, such as why it's needed or how it relates to inventory viewing. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('表示します' - display/show) and resource ('インベントリ内のすべてのアイテム' - all items in inventory), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'shop_inventory' or 'equip_item', which might also involve inventory items, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context like viewing player inventory versus shop inventory, or prerequisites such as needing a save_key, which is required per the schema. This lack of usage instructions leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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

• view_statusC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool displays information, implying it's read-only, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured or formatted data, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that front-loads the purpose. It lists key data types concisely without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity. Every part earns its place, but it's brief and lacks elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (displaying multiple character aspects), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, data format, or behavioral context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to interpret results or handle errors.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'save_key' documented as 'セーブキー'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a save_key is or its format. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate but doesn't detract.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'display character status, stats, equipment, and current activity.' It uses specific verbs ('display') and resources ('character'), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'view_inventory' or 'view_battle_log' beyond listing different data types.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a save_key), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'view_inventory' or 'check_progress', leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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

• unequip_itemB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the action (unequip) and outcome (return to inventory), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific game state (e.g., not in battle), if it's reversible, what happens if slot is empty, or any rate limits. It's minimal but not misleading.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple mutation tool. However, with no annotations and sibling tools like 'unequip_holding_item', it lacks context about game mechanics or when to choose between similar tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('slot' with enum values and 'save_key'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('外して' - unequip) and target resource ('特定のスロットからアイテム' - item from a specific slot), and specifies the outcome ('インベントリに戻します' - return to inventory). It distinguishes from 'equip_item' and 'equip_holding_item' by being the inverse operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'unequip_holding_item'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 like 'unequip_holding_item' or 'equip_item'. The description implies usage when removing an item from a slot, but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must have an item equipped) or exclusions.

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

• unequip_holding_itemB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific game state, affects player stats, has side effects, or returns confirmation. More context is needed for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on effects, return values, prerequisites, or error conditions, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively in context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'slot' refers to equipped items and 'save_key' is for game state, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('外して' - remove/unequip) and the resource ('持ち物' - holding item), specifying it moves the item back to inventory. It distinguishes from 'unequip_item' by focusing on a specific slot rather than general unequipping, though not explicitly contrasted.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when an item is equipped in a slot and needs to be returned to inventory, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'unequip_item' or other inventory tools. Context is clear but lacks alternatives or exclusions.

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

• create_playerA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 mentions the 'once per game' limitation, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits such as whether this is a mutation, what happens on duplicate names, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two concise sentences in Japanese, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key usage limitation, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with two parameters, it provides a basic understanding but could be more comprehensive to fully guide an agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 both parameters ('name' and 'save_key') with descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of 'save_key' or constraints on 'name'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'create a new player character with a name' (名前を付けて新しいプレイヤーキャラクターを作成します). It specifies the action (create) and resource (player character), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'init_game', which might have overlapping functionality. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'once per game' (ゲームごとに一度だけ実行できます). This indicates a prerequisite or limitation, but it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive regarding exclusions or comparisons.

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

• init_gameA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates save files and encryption keys (a write operation) and is a prerequisite, but doesn't mention permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens if called multiple times. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the purpose, the second provides crucial usage context. Every word earns its place in this well-structured description.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 1 parameter (100% schema coverage) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers purpose and prerequisites but lacks details about what 'initializing a game' entails or what the tool returns. Given the simplicity, it's complete enough but not rich.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 the single parameter thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '新しいゲームを初期化します' (initialize a new game) and specifies it creates save files and encryption keys. It distinguishes from siblings by being a prerequisite for other operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context: '他の操作の前に必須です' (required before other operations). This gives explicit when-to-use guidance, but doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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

• shop_inventoryA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key behavioral traits: the tool displays items, allows purchasing of equipment and inventory items, and has timing restrictions for purchases. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after a purchase.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds important behavioral constraints. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (displaying and enabling purchases), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does and key usage constraints, but lacks details about return values, error handling, and complete behavioral context that would be needed for optimal agent usage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'save_key' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about this parameter beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to display items available for purchase in a shop, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'view_inventory' or 'buy_item'. It specifies both browsing and purchasing capabilities, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for usage: it can be browsed during exploration but purchases are only allowed while waiting. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buy_item' or 'view_inventory', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the purchase timing constraint.

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

• buy_itemA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 key behavioral traits: gold consumption, inventory addition, and exploration restriction. However, it doesn't mention error conditions (insufficient gold, invalid item_id), confirmation requirements, or what happens on success/failure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds crucial behavioral constraint. No wasted words or redundant information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic operation and key constraint, but lacks information about return values, error handling, and the complete behavioral profile that would be helpful for an AI agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('購入します' - purchase) and resource ('アイテム' - item), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the shop context and gold consumption. It explicitly differentiates from exploration activities.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context about when to use ('ショップから' - from the shop) and when not to use ('探索中は購入できません' - cannot purchase during exploration). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'shop_inventory' for browsing or 'view_inventory' for checking current items.

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