get-likes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (get likes) but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., list of users, count), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. 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 complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list structure, error cases) or behavioral aspects like safety or constraints. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, with the parameter 'noteId' clearly documented as '記事ID' (article ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string ID) or context (e.g., where to find the ID). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 '記事のスキ一覧を取得する' (Get a list of article likes) clearly states the verb (取得する/get) and resource (記事のスキ/likes of an article). It distinguishes from siblings like 'like-note' (adds likes) and 'unlike-note' (removes likes) by focusing on retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'get-comments' or 'get-user-notes' beyond the resource type.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid noteId), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get-note' (which might include likes) or 'get-user-notes' (which lists notes rather than likes). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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