get_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves graph settings, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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 understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the action and resource but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the retrieved graph settings include, leaving gaps in completeness for effective tool 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('app_id' and 'preview'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of graph settings or how 'preview' affects the retrieval. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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アプリのグラフ設定を取得します' (retrieves graph settings for a Kintone app). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieves) and the resource 'グラフ設定' (graph settings), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_views' or 'get_app_settings', which might retrieve other app configurations.

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 any prerequisites, such as needing an app ID, or suggest other tools for related tasks like updating reports (e.g., 'update_reports' is a sibling tool). Usage is implied only by the action described, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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