Sub status list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'get sub-status list', implying a read-only operation but not explicitly disclosing side effects, permissions, return format, or rate limits. With zero behavioral context, the agent must guess.

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 phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed. It is slightly under-specified but efficient for a simple get-list operation.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description states the core action but lacks context about what a 'sub-status' is, what the response contains, or when this list is relevant. It is adequate minimally but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% description coverage trivially). Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 'サブステータス一覧取得' translates to 'Get sub-status list', which clearly indicates a retrieval operation with a specific resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like rms_update_sub_status, but the verb 'get' versus 'update' in the sibling name provides natural distinction.

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, no prerequisites, and no context about the sub-status list's role. It is a bare operation name without any usage instructions.

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