get_process_management

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (retrieves settings) without mentioning any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, rate limits, whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), response format, error conditions, or whether it works on live vs. preview environments (though the 'preview' parameter hints at this). The description adds minimal value beyond the basic function.

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 any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving process management settings), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about the return format, error handling, authentication requirements, and differentiation from sibling tools. The description meets the bare minimum but leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 both parameters ('app_id' and 'preview') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'kintoneアプリのプロセス管理設定を取得します' (retrieves process management settings for a kintone app). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieves/get) and resource 'プロセス管理設定' (process management settings). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_preview_app_settings' or 'get_app_settings' that might retrieve other types of settings, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 multiple 'get_' sibling tools for retrieving different aspects of kintone apps (e.g., 'get_app_settings', 'get_form_layout', 'get_views'), but no indication of when this specific process management settings retrieval is appropriate versus other settings retrieval tools.

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