get_vrm_status

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 description is minimal: it only states that the tool retrieves state. It does not disclose any side effects (likely none), performance, or the scope of 'state'. However, for a simple status getter, the description is arguably adequate.

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 that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively complete for a simple read tool. However, it does not specify what the returned status includes or any behavioral details. A brief mention of the return value would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, baseline score is 4 for 0 parameters. The description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current state of the VRM model'. It uses a verb ('取得する' = get) and resource (VRM model state). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'load_vrm_model' or 'set_vrm_expression', though the unique purpose is inferable.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other VRM-related tools.

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