disaster_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context (topic list in Japanese) but lacks details on response structure, pagination, or potential errors. With annotations present, the bar is lower; however, the description does not enrich transparency beyond affirming a safe operation.

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, complete sentence in Japanese, providing all necessary information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded, immediately conveying the tool's function.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states its purpose. However, it omits details about the return format (e.g., list of strings or objects), which would help an agent use the response correctly. Without output schema, the description should compensate, but it does not fully do so.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per instructions, baseline is 4 when no parameters exist. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable since there are none to describe.

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's purpose: retrieving a list of disaster/safety knowledge topics. The verb '取得する' (get) and the resource '一覧' (list) make the action specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like disaster_search by focusing on listing topics rather than searching.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage by naming the operation (list), but does not contrast with alternatives like disaster_search. Without this guidance, an agent may not optimally select this tool when search is more appropriate.

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