get_query_language_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, response format, or if it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter documentation retrieval tool and is perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important context. For a documentation retrieval tool, it should ideally describe the format of returned documentation (HTML, markdown, structured data) or any prerequisites. The description is complete enough for the simplest case but leaves gaps for practical implementation.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive documentation about kintone query language syntax'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on documentation retrieval rather than data operations like get_records or update_record. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar documentation tools since none exist among siblings.

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 implies usage when documentation about the query language is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. There are no similar documentation tools among siblings, so no comparative guidance is possible. The context is clear but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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