waroom_get_postmortems

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 states the action ('取得します' - get) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly improved by including key context (e.g., pagination) to enhance clarity without losing conciseness.

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 has parameters (2) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the pagination behavior, return format, or how it differs from siblings. With no annotations and missing output details, it fails to provide enough context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('page' and 'per_page') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how pagination works in practice. Baseline is 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 'ポストモーテムの一覧を取得します' (Get a list of postmortems) states the verb ('取得します' - get) and resource ('ポストモーテムの一覧' - list of postmortems), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'waroom_get_incidents' or 'waroom_get_postmortem_template', which also retrieve related data, leaving the scope 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer this over 'waroom_get_incidents' for postmortem-specific data. This lack of direction leaves usage unclear.

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