waroom_get_incident_details

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. It describes a read operation ('取得します' - get), implying it is likely non-destructive, but does not confirm this or detail other behaviors such as error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. There is no wasted language, earning a high score for brevity and 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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what '詳細情報' (detailed information) includes, such as fields returned or example outputs, which is crucial since there is no output schema. Without annotations, it also misses behavioral context like safety or permissions. The description is minimal and does not fully compensate for the absence of structured data, making it inadequate for effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'incident_uuid' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it only references '特定のインシデント' (specific incident) without elaborating on the UUID parameter. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which applies here since the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 states the purpose ('特定のインシデントの詳細情報を取得します' translates to 'Get detailed information for a specific incident'), which is clear but minimal. It specifies the verb '取得します' (get) and resource 'インシデントの詳細情報' (incident details), distinguishing it from siblings like 'waroom_get_incidents' (list incidents) by focusing on a single incident. However, it lacks specificity on what '詳細情報' (detailed information) entails, making it somewhat vague.

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 prerequisites, such as needing an incident UUID, or compare it to sibling tools like 'waroom_get_incidents' for listing incidents or 'waroom_update_incident_status' for modifying incidents. Usage is implied by the parameter name but not explicitly stated, leaving the agent to infer context.

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