get_values_philosophy

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 that it retrieves a values/philosophy entry by ID. It doesn't disclose what happens when the ID doesn't exist (error behavior), whether this is a read-only operation, or what return format to expect. For a retrieval tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap in behavioral context.

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 precisely conveys the tool's purpose with no waste. It front-loads the verb (get) and resource (values/philosophy) and adds the ID scoping qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations. For a get-by-ID operation, the description is mostly adequate. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, slightly more context about error handling or return value could improve completeness. The operation is simple enough that the current description is minimally viable but lacks some protective context for an agent.

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 schema has 100% coverage with the single 'id' parameter described as 'エントリID (UUID)' meaning 'entry ID (UUID)'. Since the schema documents the parameter fully, the description doesn't need to add parameter detail. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the necessary work and the description's ID reference aligns with the parameter.

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 '価値観・哲学を取得 (IDで指定)' means 'get values/philosophy (specified by ID)' which clearly states it retrieves values/philosophy by ID. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (values/philosophy), and it distinguishes from siblings like list_values_philosophy (which lists all). However, it's only provided in Japanese without English clarity, which slightly limits universal comprehension.

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 'use this when you need a values/philosophy entry by its ID', distinguishing it from the list variant through the '(IDで指定)' qualifier. However, there's no explicit 'when-not' guidance or mention of alternatives like the list operation for fetching all entries. The usage context is clear from the get-by-ID pattern but no sibling differentiation is explicitly stated beyond the ID scoping.

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