get-test-membership-notes

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 mentions 'ダミーデータ' (dummy data), indicating this returns mock data, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, 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: 'テスト用：メンバーシップの記事一覧をダミーデータで取得する'. It's front-loaded with the testing purpose and clearly states the action and resource. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 tool with 3 parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It covers the testing purpose and dummy data aspect but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage distinctions from siblings like 'get-membership-notes'. For a tool in this context, more information 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 all parameters documented in the schema (membershipKey, page, perPage). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the purpose: 'テスト用：メンバーシップの記事一覧をダミーデータで取得する' (Test: Get a list of membership articles with dummy data). It specifies the verb '取得する' (get), resource 'メンバーシップの記事一覧' (membership article list), and scope 'テスト用' (for testing) with dummy data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-membership-notes', which appears to be a non-test version, leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage context with 'テスト用' (for testing), suggesting this tool should be used for testing purposes rather than production. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get-membership-notes' or other note-related tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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