get_custom_category

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. The description only states it retrieves a category by ID but doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens with nonexistent ID), whether this is a read-only operation, or any side effects. For a simple get tool this is somewhat acceptable, but with zero annotation coverage, more context would help.

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 that states the purpose efficiently. No wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately short for a simple single-parameter get tool.

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?

For a simple single-ID read operation with 100% schema coverage, the description is largely adequate. However, given zero annotations and no output schema, it could mention what the response contains (category structure) or note prerequisites. It's functional but at the minimum viable level.

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%, with the only parameter 'id' described as 'エントリID (UUID)'. The description's 'IDで指定' confirms ID-based lookup, which matches the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully and the description adds minimal 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?

Description states 'カスタムカテゴリを取得 (IDで指定)' which is 'Get custom category (specified by ID)', a clear verb+resource. However it does not distinguish from siblings like get_custom_entry or similar get_* tools beyond the resource name. The purpose is understandable but minimal and doesn't add scope or differentiation context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many get_* siblings (get_custom_entry, get_persona, list_custom_categories), there's no mention of when to use get vs list, or which scenario fits this tool. The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.

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