get_hobby

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 says 'get by ID' — it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the ID doesn't exist (error vs empty), whether it requires authentication, or what the return format looks like. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, minimal behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It's appropriately brief for a simple single-parameter getter tool. It could arguably be considered under-specified, but for clear get-by-ID semantics, this length is reasonable.

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-parameter getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the required context is modest. However, with zero annotations and no mention of return behavior, error handling, or how this differs from the many sibling get_* tools, the description is incomplete for safe agent invocation. The tool is straightforward enough that a 3 might be defensible, but the absence of any behavioral notes tips it to a 2.

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% (the id parameter is documented as 'エントリID (UUID)'). The description adds 'IDで指定' which reinforces that the tool looks up by ID, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 '趣味を取得 (IDで指定)' translates to 'Get hobby (specified by ID)', which clearly states the action (get) and resource (hobby) with an ID-based lookup. However, it lacks sibling differentiation — there are sibling tools like get_custom_entry, get_skill, get_project, etc., all with similar ID-lookup semantics, and this description doesn't distinguish when to use this particular entry-getter over others.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description merely states the operation without mentioning any context for when to invoke this vs list_hobbies or other get_* siblings. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or alternative tool selection guidance.

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