mf_api_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'display' implies a read-only operation and names the output subjects, which provides some transparency, but it does not explicitly state that the tool performs no mutation, requires no authentication, or how the output is structured.

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?

A single Japanese sentence states the entire purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main output, then adds the secondary comparison point.

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 zero-parameter introspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonably complete picture: an agent can call it without arguments and know it will return server configuration details and differences from mf-full. It could be more explicit about the exact contents of the settings, but the tool's simplicity lowers the required detail.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. The 0-parameter baseline applies, and the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('表示する' / display) and clearly identifies both the primary resource (this server's configuration information) and an additional output (differences from the OAuth version mf-full). This distinguishes it from the many data-operation siblings by framing it as an introspection/metadata tool.

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 states what the tool shows but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as auth_status or list_offices. It names no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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