list_hobbies

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 one-sentence description reveals nothing about pagination behavior, what fields are returned, ordering defaults (beyond schema hints), or whether listing is scoped to a single profile or global. With zero annotations and a minimal description, this is a significant transparency 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 extremely brief (one Japanese sentence), which is appropriately minimal for a straightforward list tool. However, given the richer behavioral context that could be added (pagination patterns, default ordering behavior, profile scoping), it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 6-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema. While the schema documents parameters well, the description provides minimal context. For a list operation, it would benefit from noting what happens when filter is applied, how pagination interacts with offset/limit, and what the default query scope is (all profiles vs current profile). The profile_id scoping is documented but only in the schema, not reinforced in the description.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters with meaningful defaults (limit default 50, order_by default created_at, order_desc default true). The description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The profile_id parameter's scoping semantics are well-documented in the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '趣味一覧を取得' (retrieve hobby list) clearly states it lists hobbies with a specific verb (取得/retrieve) and resource (趣味/hobbies). It's distinct from get_hobby (singular fetch) and list operations for other resources, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list_* tools.

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 doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. However, the parameter schema for profile_id provides valuable guidance about account-scoped vs profile-scoped API keys and default behavior with profile-scoped keys. This usage context is embedded in the schema rather than the description, and there's no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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