rails_lens_screen_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the three modes and their outputs (e.g., 'returns all files', 'returns all screens'). This adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise with two paragraphs and minimal filler. However, it lacks a structured breakdown of parameters or return formats. It earns its place but could be more organized.

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?

The description covers the main modes and their return types (files, screens, ledger), which is adequate for the primary use cases. But given the 9 parameters and lack of output schema detail, it may not address all edge cases or parameter combinations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains how to use each mode (e.g., URL/controller for mode1, file path for mode2) but does not describe parameters like 'format', 'locale', 'group_by', 'include_api', or 'method_name' in detail. This is insufficient given the 9 parameters.

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 clearly states the tool provides bidirectional mapping between screens and source code, listing three specific modes. The verb '提供する' and resource '画面とソースコードの双方向マッピング' make purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though the screen-mapping focus is evident from the name.

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 second paragraph gives explicit usage guidance: 'Before changing screens, use this tool to check impact range.' This tells when to use. However, there is no when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned, limiting completeness.

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