メモ一覧を取得

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the login prerequisite, which is useful context, but does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid token, or any error behavior. Minimal for a simple tool; adds some value beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and prerequisite. No fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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?

Tool is simple (one param, no output schema, no annotations) and the description covers the essential purpose and login requirement. However, it does not mention the return format, potential errors (e.g., invalid token), or explicitly label the operation as non-mutating, leaving some contextual gaps for an 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 documents the token parameter with a clear description ('login で取得したセッショントークン'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: '一覧表示' (list display) of '自分が登録したメモ' (user's own memos). Distinct from siblings like add_memo, delete_memo, login, register, so it unambiguously identifies the operation.

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?

Implies usage after login ('ログインが必要です'), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add_memo, delete_memo). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, making the guidance merely contextual rather than explicit.

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