get-circle-info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('取得する' - get) without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'circle information' entails. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage, as it lacks critical 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 phrase, which is concise but under-specified. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, making it inefficient rather than truly concise. Every word earns its place, but the place is too small to be helpful, bordering on tautological.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'circle information' returns or how it fits into the context of sibling tools. For a read operation, more behavioral and output context is needed to be complete, even with minimal complexity.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs without requiring description compensation.

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 'サークル情報を取得する' (Get circle information) restates the tool name 'get-circle-info' in Japanese, making it a tautology. It doesn't specify what 'circle information' includes or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get-user' or 'get-stats'. The purpose is vague beyond the literal translation of the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get-user', 'get-stats', and 'search-users', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description offers no usage instructions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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