list_saved_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool displays a list but doesn't describe format, pagination, sorting, or error conditions. The mention of return type ('str: ドキュメント一覧') is minimal and doesn't clarify what the string contains (e.g., JSON, plain text). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence about returns is minimal but could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly tighter by combining the two sentences for better flow.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage versus siblings and behavioral details. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it still misses guidance and transparency elements that would make it more helpful for an agent.

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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately avoids this. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameter information is required, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.

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: '保存済みのAPIドキュメント一覧を表示します' (displays a list of saved API documents). This specifies both the verb (display/list) and resource (saved API documents). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_api_docs' or 'get_api_details', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_api_docs' and 'get_api_details' available, there's no indication of when this listing function is preferred over searching or getting details, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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