list_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. The one-sentence description says only that it retrieves a list, but doesn't disclose pagination defaults, filtering behavior, ordering defaults, or that this is a read-only operation. It's a list operation so low destructiveness is implied, but nothing about the return structure, count limits, or authentication scoping (though profile_id parameter hints at scoping).

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. It's efficient and to the point with no waste. However, it's perhaps too terse—a bit more behavioral context would make it more useful without bloating it.

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 list/filter/paginate tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite thin. It doesn't clarify pagination behavior, how filter maps to columns, what the default sort is beyond the schema default, or what the response shape is. Sibling tools like list_personas and list_profiles with the same structure suggest this is a CRUD list endpoint, but the description alone doesn't help an agent understand the nuances of filtering (e.g., whether filter values are exact matches, LIKE queries, etc.).

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 6 parameters. The description adds zero parameter context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage. The schema itself is decent (defaults stated for limit, order_by, order_desc, and profile_id has a clear description about scoping behavior).

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・哲学一覧を取得' (Get values/philosophy list) clearly states the action (list retrieval) and the resource (values/philosophy). It's brief but distinguishes from sibling tools like get_values_philosophy (single item) and create/update/delete operations. The verb '取得' (retrieve/get) clearly signals a read operation.

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 state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the name implies listing and siblings get_values_philosophy suggests single-fetch, there's no explicit guidance about when to use filtering vs pagination, or how it differs from list_custom_entries or other list tools. Some context is implied by the tool name and sibling structure, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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