waroom_get_service_architecture_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('取得します') without detailing traits like read-only status, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the service doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'architecture context' includes, potential return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'service_name' documented as 'サービス名' (service name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score 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?

The description states the purpose as '取得します' (get/retrieve) for '特定のサービスのアーキテクチャコンテキスト' (specific service's architecture context), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'architecture context' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'waroom_get_services' or 'waroom_get_service_labels', leaving room for ambiguity.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the service must exist or be accessible, and doesn't mention any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'waroom_get_services' for broader service information.

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