get_project_kpis

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

The description implies a read-only operation through '取得する' and documents the period parameter, providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose return format, aggregation behavior, or potential edge cases, leaving the transparency burden only partially met.

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 concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter getter, the core function is clear, but the absence of an output schema means the description should explain what data is returned. It does not mention response structure or limitations, requiring the agent to infer the output.

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 only provides a default value, so the description compensates by listing valid period values (daily/weekly/monthly) and clarifying that it is the aggregation interval. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 that the tool retrieves KPI achievement rates by project ('プロジェクト別のKPI達成率を取得する'), using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_member_kpis or get_project_efficiency, but the 'by project' scope gives adequate clarity.

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 versus alternatives like get_business_overview or get_project_efficiency. The description only covers the period parameter and does not mention use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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