get_life_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. As a retrieval tool, the read behavior is reasonably implied by '取得' (retrieve), but it does not disclose whether the tool returns the full record, whether it throws or returns null for missing IDs, or whether any related data (tags, relations) is included. For a read-only tool this is a modest gap, not a critical one.

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, compact sentence that conveys purpose and scoping with zero filler. For a simple single-parameter retrieval tool, this is appropriately concise.

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?

This is a simple single-ID retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage of its one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It would benefit from clarifying the return format or behavior for missing entries, but for tool of this simplicity the description is largely sufficient.

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 single 'id' parameter is documented as 'エントリID (UUID)'. The description restates the ID-based scoping ('IDで指定'), which aligns with but doesn't add much beyond the schema. With full schema coverage and a single well-documented parameter, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'ライフイベントを取得 (IDで指定)' (Retrieve life event, specified by ID) uses a clear verb+resource and specifies the ID-based scoping. It clearly distinguishes from sibling list_life_events (which would be a collection operation) and aligns with the get_* retrieval pattern of siblings. However, it doesn't elaborate on what distinguishes it from related get_* tools beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage is for retrieving a single life_event by ID, which is contextually clear. But there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need all events use list_life_events), and no alternative tools named. The context is inferred from the retrieval pattern rather than stated.

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