arc_get_fetch_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions being 'called twice' without explaining what that entails (e.g., polling, idempotency, or side effects). No information about permissions, rate limits, or result structure is given.

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 one concise sentence with a parenthetical note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the note '※2回呼び出し' could be clearer. Minimal word count is good, but the note's placement is slightly ambiguous.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description fails to describe the return format or content of the result. The 'called twice' note is unexplained. Given the low complexity (2 params), the description is incomplete for an agent to reliably use the tool.

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 for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 clearly states the verb '取得する' (get) and the resource 'リクエストの結果' (result of a request), distinguishing it from its sibling 'arc_fetch' which sends the request. The note about being called twice adds specific purpose context.

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 implicitly indicates usage after 'arc_fetch' by naming it in the tool name and description, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The '※2回呼び出し' note hints at a specific calling pattern but does not clarify prerequisites or exclusions.

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