get_app_customize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '取得します' (get/retrieve) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state this or provide any other behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the customization settings are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 relative simplicity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. While it clearly states what the tool retrieves, it doesn't provide behavioral context that would be helpful for an agent (especially with no annotations), nor does it help differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools. For a read operation with good schema coverage, it meets basic requirements but could be more complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting of parameter documentation.

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 action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and the resource ('kintoneアプリのJavaScript/CSSカスタマイズ設定' - kintone app's JavaScript/CSS customization settings). It's specific about what is being retrieved, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_settings' or 'get_preview_app_settings' which might retrieve different aspects of app configuration.

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. There are several sibling tools that retrieve app-related information (e.g., 'get_app_acl', 'get_app_actions', 'get_app_plugins', 'get_apps_info'), but the description doesn't help the agent understand when this specific customization retrieval tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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