版の一覧

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: version 0 means the state right after opening, and filenames are not reused so numbering diverges from filename digits after an undo followed by an edit. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, nor what errors occur for an unknown or unopened score_id.

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?

Two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the numbering caveat second. Nothing is wasted, though the caveat sentence is dense and could be clearer about the undo-then-edit scenario it refers to.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and it only says it returns versions and the current version without describing the shape (e.g. list of version numbers with filenames). For a zero-argument-complexity read tool this is adequate but leaves the response structure undefined.

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% and the single parameter score_id is documented in the schema as the value returned by score_open. The description's phrase 'the open score' loosely implies the same scope but adds no new syntax or constraints, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the version list of the currently open score plus the current version, with version 0 defined as the state right after opening. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like score_undo or score_save, though it never explicitly names how it differs from score_compare, which also inspects score state.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as score_undo, score_compare, or score_save. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it reports version state, so the agent must guess the workflow context.

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