get_operator_basic_info

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

No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden. It lists return fields but does not disclose behavior for invalid names, error handling, or that it is read-only. Output schema exists but description alone is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence with key information and an example. No redundant words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 output schema exists, description is sufficient for basic usage. It covers what the tool returns and input format. Lacks mention of error scenarios or prerequisites, but tool is simple.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter. The description adds essential meaning: it expects the in-game Chinese name (e.g., '阿米娅'), going beyond raw schema type.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'basic info of a specified operator', listing specific fields like class, rarity, affiliation. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'basic info' vs archives or voicelines.

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 instructs to use in-game Chinese names (e.g., 'Amiya'), which is helpful. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_operator_archives or read_prts_page.

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