get_deploy_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('確認します') without describing whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it affects system state, rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 Japanese sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point with no 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 that this is a read operation (implied by 'get' name) with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'deploy status' means, what values might be returned, and whether this checks production or preview environments. The current description is too minimal for the agent to understand the full context of use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'apps' parameter clearly documented as '確認対象のアプリID配列' (array of app IDs to check). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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: '確認します' (check/confirm) for 'kintoneアプリのデプロイ状態' (kintone app deployment status). It uses a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'deploy_app' or other status-checking tools, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or differentiate from similar tools like 'get_apps_info' or 'get_preview_app_settings' that might provide related information. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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