get-category-notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieval but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is paginated (implied by 'page' parameter but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the returned list takes. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 retrieval tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (list format, fields included), doesn't mention pagination behavior despite having a page parameter, and provides no context about error conditions or limitations. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 fully documents all three parameters (category, page, sort) with descriptions, defaults, and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb ('取得する' - get/retrieve) and resource ('カテゴリーに含まれる記事一覧' - list of articles in a category). It's specific about what it retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'get-user-notes' or 'search-notes' which might also retrieve articles.

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. With many sibling tools that retrieve notes/articles (e.g., 'get-user-notes', 'search-notes', 'get-membership-notes'), there's no indication of when this category-specific retrieval is preferred over other filtering methods.

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