Hey365 setup / auth recovery

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 mentions the actions (installation, Broker disablement, browser authentication) but does not disclose side effects, required privileges, reversibility, or impact on existing settings. For a recovery/mutation tool, this is a significant gap; the agent cannot assess risks or prerequisites.

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, concise sentence in Japanese that front-loads the trigger conditions and clearly states the recovery actions. Every clause serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 description is adequate for a two-boolean-parameter tool with no output schema, but it lacks information about expected outcomes, return values, or side effects. Given no annotations and no output schema, an agent may not know what to expect after invoking it. It explains 'what' and 'when' but not 'what happens after' or potential pitfalls.

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 both parameters (force and interactive), and the schema already explains their meaning. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameters fully.

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 purpose: recover Work IQ when it is uninstalled, unauthenticated, or WAM auth fails, by performing installation, Broker disabling, and browser authentication. The verb '復旧する' (recover) plus the resource (Work IQ) and explicit conditions clearly distinguish it from siblings like hey365_install, which likely only handles installation.

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 explicit conditions for use: '未インストール・未認証・WAM 認証失敗の場合' (when not installed, not authenticated, or WAM auth fails). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the condition is specific enough to guide selection among siblings. Lacks a clear statement of when not to use it, such as when only installation is needed.

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