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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but does not disclose pagination, result size limits, authorization requirements, or what happens when the connection parameters match nothing.

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 tight sentence with the action and filter basis front-loaded and no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate, though there is nothing else to front-load because the sentence contains so little.

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 four-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, meaning the description should explain the shape of the returned Presto tables and any filtering behavior. It provides neither, and also leaves ambiguity around whether all four connection parameters are mandatory.

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 all four parameters (container_id, container_type, presto_engine_id, presto_instance_crn) are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to 'connection parameters' generally and adds no format, constraint, or relationship detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 states a specific verb (returns/list) and resource (Presto tables) plus the filtering basis (provided connection parameters), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling QUERY_DATA_ASSETS, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which data-asset tool to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call LIST_DATA_ASSETS versus QUERY_DATA_ASSETS, nor any mention of prerequisites such as having a valid Presto instance CRN or engine ID. The agent must infer usage conditions entirely from the name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the basic act of listing. It does not state that this is a safe read-only operation, nor whether results are paginated, how metadata is shaped, or any auth/size constraints. It adds minimal behavioral context for a no-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states verb, resource, scope, and return content with no redundancy or filler. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read tool the completeness bar is modest, but with no annotations and no output schema the definition should say more about the response (e.g. pagination, metadata fields, empty-list behavior). It covers the core purpose but leaves the return contract unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add one semantic point beyond the empty schema: it returns all available libraries with their metadata and applies no filtering, which is useful context for an agent expecting an unfiltered enumeration.

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 states a specific verb (リストします/list) and resource (ドキュメントライブラリ/document libraries) plus what is returned (そのメタデータ/metadata), so the purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY, leaving the agent to infer the list-vs-query split on its own.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative (e.g. QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY) is named. The qualifier 「すべての利用可能な」 (all available) weakly implies this is the enumerate-everything variant, which is only implied usage rather than stated context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lists' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the description does state that metadata is returned, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or permission requirements for a potentially large collection.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though there is room for one more sentence of routing guidance.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and where, which is the core need. It falls short on pagination/result-size behavior and on distinguishing itself from the QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET sibling, both of which matter in a five-sibling family.

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% for the single library_id parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter's meaning. The description reinforces that the listing is scoped to the specified library but adds no format or constraint details beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the 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 uses a specific verb (リストします) and resource (ドキュメントセット) with explicit scope (指定されたドキュメントライブラリ内) and even notes that metadata is included. It is clearly distinguishable from LIST_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET, leaving the read-vs-query distinction implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET or QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY. The only usage hint is that results are scoped to a specified library, which is inferable from the required parameter rather than stated explicitly.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, whether the natural language is interpreted locally or remotely, or what the response contains. Only the basic action is described.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a minimal description, though it is arguably under-specified rather than over-concise.

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 6-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the natural language query returns, how results are structured, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer everything beyond the purpose.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships (e.g., tables must belong to the container). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (executes) and resource (natural language query against selected Presto tables), which distinguishes it from the document-oriented siblings (QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY, QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET). However, it does not differentiate from LIST_DATA_ASSETS or clarify what a 'data asset' is in this context.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided, no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., needing a Presto instance or engine already configured), and no alternatives are suggested (e.g., listing assets first with LIST_DATA_ASSETS).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about behavior. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether the query costs money/is rate-limited, what auth is required, or what a result looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, appropriate for a two-parameter tool. It is short but not padded or repetitive.

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 simple two-parameter read-style tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of any behavioral or usage context leaves it only minimally complete.

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 both query and library_id documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning (no format, syntax, or example of a natural-language query) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb (実行します) and resource (指定されたドキュメントライブラリ) with a clear scope (natural-language query). It is distinguishable from the LIST_* siblings, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET sibling, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over LIST_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY or QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET, nor any prerequisite or exclusion information. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/query operation but does not state that it is non-destructive, what the query returns, whether results are paginated or ranked, or any permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for what it conveys, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain at least the nature of the query results and its read-only character. It does neither, leaving the agent to guess at behavior for a tool whose return value is the whole point.

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%, and each of the three parameters already has a short Japanese description in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning beyond those labels, so the baseline 3 for fully documented parameters 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 names a specific verb (自然言語クエリを実行) and resource (指定されたドキュメントセット), so the agent knows it runs an NL query against a document set. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY, which shares nearly identical phrasing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY or LIST_DOCUMENT_SET, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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