get_operator_basic_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns a set of fields (class, rarity, etc.) and specifies input format. It doesn't mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only query tool this is sufficient.

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 sentence with an example, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and includes input guidance efficiently.

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 only one parameter, an existing output schema, and siblings covering different aspects, the description is complete. It specifies what info is retrieved and the required input format.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), but the description explains the parameter 'operator_name' must be the in-game Chinese name and provides an example. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb '获取' (get) and clearly identifies the resource '干员的基本信息' (basic info of operator), listing example fields (职业、稀有度等). It distinguishes from siblings like get_operator_archives which imply more detailed info.

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 explicitly instructs to use in-game Chinese names with an example ('阿米娅'). It implies this tool is for basic info, differentiating from archives and voicelines, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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