疎通確認

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds behavioral context by listing the exact fields returned (mode, entityCount, sceneGeneration, currentScene, protocolVersion) and confirming it is a liveness check, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two concise Japanese sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('疎通確認'), then listing return fields, and finally usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers its purpose, return data, and when to use it. No gaps are present for an agent to misunderstand its role.

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 tool has zero parameters (input schema is empty), so the description does not need to add parameter guidance. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional semantics are necessary.

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 title '疎通確認' and description clearly state the tool is for connectivity checking (ping) to the editor. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform distinct actions like entity manipulation or scene management. The verb 'ping' and resource 'editor' are 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?

The description explicitly advises to use this tool first to check if the editor is alive ('まず最初に叩いて生きてるか確認するのに使う'). While it does not list when not to use or alternatives, given the simple health-check nature, this is clear context for usage.

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