get-user-notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' a list, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (hinted by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what constitutes 'articles' in this context. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key details like scope or limitations.

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 simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'articles' are, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination details), error handling, or authentication requirements. For a tool with siblings like 'get-my-notes', more differentiation would help. The description is minimal and leaves gaps for the agent.

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 both parameters ('username', 'page') fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format of 'username', what 'page' controls, or default behavior). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 'ユーザーの記事一覧を取得する' (Get a list of user's articles) clearly states the verb ('取得する' - get) and resource ('ユーザーの記事一覧' - user's article list). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-note' (single note) and 'search-notes' (search across notes), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-my-notes' (which likely gets the current user's notes). The purpose is specific but could be more precise about 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 like 'get-my-notes' (for current user), 'search-notes' (for broader searches), or 'get-note' (for a single note). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description alone.

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