get_preview_form_fields

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 states it retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity of retrieving form field information in a preview environment, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what information is returned, how it differs from production data, or any behavioral context. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (app_id and lang). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of 'preview' in relation to app_id or lang options. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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' - retrieves) and the resource ('プレビュー環境のkintoneアプリのフォームフィールド情報' - preview environment kintone app form field information). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_form_fields' by specifying 'preview environment', making the scope clear. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling 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 like 'get_form_fields' (for production) or other field-related tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a preview environment setup, or exclusions. The only contextual clue is 'preview environment', but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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