変換結果取得

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing behavioral — it does not say what happens if the conversion is still running, whether it blocks or polls, or what the retrieved result contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, appropriate for a simple retrieval tool. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value — job status, artifacts, or error states when a job is incomplete or failed — and says none of that. For a result-retrieval tool this is a meaningful omission, though the annotations do cover the safety profile.

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%, so space_id, space_name and conversion_id are already documented in the schema, including the precedence rule for space_id. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-source detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (取得) and resource (変換ジョブの結果) with clear scope — the result of one conversion job. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_conversions or convert_document, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus convert_document (to start a conversion) or list_conversions (to enumerate jobs). The agent must infer the workflow position from the name alone.

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