mt_list_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('取得します' - get) without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), or what happens on errors. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence ('記事一覧を取得します') that is front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. Given the minimal content, it scores well for conciseness but loses a point for under-specification.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like pagination. For a list operation in a context with many sibling tools, more detail is needed to ensure proper use.

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 schema already documents all parameters (siteId, limit, offset, status) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples for status beyond the schema's '例: Publish, Draft' or context for siteId. 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.

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

The description '記事一覧を取得します' (Get list of articles) states the basic action (get/list) and resource (articles), which provides a vague purpose. However, it doesn't specify what type of articles or distinguish from sibling tools like mt_list_pages or mt_list_content_data, leaving ambiguity about the exact scope.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like mt_get_entry (for single entries) and mt_list_pages (for pages), there's no indication of when this specific list tool is appropriate.

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