get-membership-notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves a list but doesn't describe what 'notes' contain, whether the operation is safe/read-only, if authentication is needed, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user data.

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 tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'notes' are, their format, or the return structure. Given the complexity of retrieving user data and multiple sibling tools for similar operations, more context is needed for proper agent use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it retrieves notes for a membership. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does 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 'メンバーシップの記事一覧を取得する' clearly states the action (取得する/get) and resource (メンバーシップの記事一覧/membership notes list). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-user-notes' or 'get-category-notes' which might retrieve similar note lists for different scopes.

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 sibling tools like 'get-user-notes' or 'get-category-notes' that might retrieve notes for different contexts, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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