summarize_qa_pairs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It transparently states that it extracts and summarizes pairs and enumerates output fields, which gives a clear functional picture. However, it does not address cost, rate limits, or error behavior, which could affect usage.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose, required input, and output format. It contains no filler and front-loads the essential information.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and output structure adequately. It lacks explicit error/cost context, but the schema's thorough parameter documentation and the clear output field listing make it sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 does not add parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides, such as default values or parameter relationships.

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 uses specific verbs '抽出・要約' and names the resource '質問と答弁のペア' with the required input issueID. It also lists the outputs, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like summarize_meeting or summarize_speeches.

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 usage context by specifying issueID and the task of QA pair summarization, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The schema's issueID description references search_speeches, but that is outside the main description.

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