get_preview_form_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While '取得します' (get/retrieve) implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it returns structured layout data or raw configuration, potential rate limits, or what happens if the app doesn't exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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 Japanese sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by specifying it's for 'retrieving' rather than just 'getting' to be more precise.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'form layout information' includes, the format of the returned data, or how this differs from the production version. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and output context to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'app_id' parameter completely. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema 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 ('プレビュー環境のkintoneアプリのフォームレイアウト情報' - preview environment kintone app form layout information). It specifies the 'preview environment' context, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_form_layout' that presumably retrieves production layout. However, it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the description text itself.

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 the sibling 'get_form_layout' tool or explain when preview vs production layout retrieval is appropriate. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage instructions provided.

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