Luaプロパティ状態取得

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds behavioral details: it returns schema-based defaults (not just overrides) and the output structure. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, with three efficient sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and includes key comparisons. No unnecessary words; but could be slightly more structured.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in full. It covers the key behavior (includes defaults, for pre-check), parameter options, and contrasts with a sibling. It provides enough context for correct selection.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description mentions entity(id) or name but does not add meaning beyond the already clear schema descriptions (e.g., name is stable after Stop). The schema itself explains the parameters well.

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 it returns all current LuaScript property values, including defaults, and contrasts with get_entity which only returns saved overrides. The verb '返す' (return) and resource 'LuaScript properties' are specific, and the purpose (check before setting) is explicit.

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?

Description explicitly says to use before calling dx12_set_lua_property and distinguishes from get_entity by noting the inclusion of defaults. It also mentions the two ways to specify the entity (by id or name). However, it does not give explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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