get_persona

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description implies a read operation ('取得' = fetch) which suggests non-destructive behavior, but it doesn't disclose anything beyond that — no mention of whether a missing ID returns an error, whether it's read-only, or what the response looks like. For a fetch tool the functional intent is reasonably inferable.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words, though it could arguably be slightly more descriptive. It's appropriately brief for a simple single-parameter fetch 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?

This is a very simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), so the completeness bar is lower. The description plus schema adequately convey the operation for a basic single-record fetch. However, given the crowded sibling space with similar persona retrieval tools, slightly more context about what distinguishes this from list_personas would improve completeness.

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 sole parameter 'id' documented as 'エントリID (UUID)' in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. With full coverage at a single parameter, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'ペルソナを取得 (IDで指定)' states 'get persona (specified by ID)' which clearly communicates a read operation on a persona resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling tools list_personas and list_available_personas, which could easily be confused for retrieval operations. The verb+resource is clear but differentiation from siblings is absent.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include list_personas and list_available_personas, the description should clarify that this tool fetches a single persona by ID while the list variants return collections. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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