list_guidelines

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 adds minimal context beyond the schema by noting '対応している' (supported) and that filtering by type is possible, but it does not describe the output structure, pagination, sorting, or whether the list is exhaustive. For a read-only listing tool, the safety profile is obvious, but other behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a brief mention of filtering. Every word contributes; there is no repetition or filler, making it appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention the output format or fields of the list, and the optional show_aliases behavior is only in the schema. However, for a basic listing tool, this level of detail may be sufficient, so it earns an average score.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the type filtering capability already in the schema but adds no new semantic detail. It does not elaborate on the show_aliases parameter or explain values beyond the enum descriptions, so the description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 displays a list of supported FSA guidelines and supervisory notices, using specific verb '表示する' (display) and resource '一覧' (list). It also mentions filtering by type, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_law or search_law that likely retrieve specific documents or search full text.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need a list of guidelines), but it does not explicitly distinguish it from list_laws or other alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool, so the usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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