get-notice-counts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('取得する' - get) without detailing behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, what the return format might be (e.g., counts as numbers, with timestamps), or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 ('通知件数を取得する') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., specifying the type of notices) to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 0 parameters) but lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'notice counts' entail, the return format, or any behavioral context. While the schema coverage is high, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's full behavior and output, especially without annotations to fill in gaps.

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% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. According to the rules, for 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4, as there is no need to compensate for missing parameter information. The description aligns with the schema's lack of parameters.

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 '通知件数を取得する' (Get notice counts) states the tool's purpose with a clear verb ('取得する' - get) and resource ('通知件数' - notice counts). However, it lacks specificity about what 'notice counts' refers to (e.g., unread notices, total notices, by category) and does not distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get-stats' or 'get-search-history', which might also retrieve counts or statistics. The purpose is understandable but vague in scope.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'get-stats' and 'get-search-history' that might overlap in retrieving statistical data, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it is the appropriate choice. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit instructions.

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