get-test-membership-summaries

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 discloses that the tool returns dummy data, which is a key behavioral trait not inferable from the schema. However, it doesn't mention other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral 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, efficient sentence in Japanese that front-loads the key information (testing purpose and resource). Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and testing context but doesn't cover behavioral details like response format or error handling. For a read-only tool with dummy data, more context on output expectations would improve completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'テスト用：加入済みメンバーシップ一覧をダミーデータで取得する' (Test: Get a list of subscribed memberships with dummy data). It specifies the verb ('取得する' - get) and resource ('加入済みメンバーシップ一覧' - list of subscribed memberships), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get-membership-summaries' by indicating it's for testing with dummy data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-test-membership-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 clear context for usage: it's for testing purposes ('テスト用'), which implies it should be used in test scenarios rather than production. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the testing context is sufficient guidance. No misleading information is present.

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