boj_menu

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 states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling, which are critical for a tool with no structured 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('List all BoJ cartridges') and specifies the returned data without any fluff. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., how data is formatted or if it's paginated) and doesn't differentiate from siblings, making it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent use without additional structured data.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details while being complete in this context.

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 action ('List all') and the resource ('BoJ cartridges'), specifying the data fields returned (domains, protocols, tiers, availability). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'boj_cartridges' or 'boj_cartridge_info', which appear related, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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. With sibling tools like 'boj_cartridges' and 'boj_cartridge_info' that seem related to cartridges, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent select appropriately among them.

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