get_vision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The description implies a read operation (get) but does not disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or limitations. A score of 3 is given because it is not misleading, but lacks detail.

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, concise sentence in Japanese. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 simple input (one required parameter), the description is adequate but lacks context. There is no output schema, and the description does not state what the tool returns. For a tool with siblings, more differentiation is needed for completeness.

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%, but there is only one parameter (team_id) with no description in the schema. The description does not explain what team_id represents or provide any guidance on its value. Baseline 3 is used because the schema is simple and only one parameter exists, but the description adds no value.

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 states the tool gets the team's annual goals (チームの年間目標を取得する). While the verb '取得する' (get) and resource '年間目標' (annual goals) are clear, the description does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_goals which may return a different scope of goals.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_goals. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for using the tool, leaving the agent to infer its usage from the name alone.

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