get_character

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description is consistent with that, but it adds no additional behavioral context such as error conditions, permission requirements, or response nature. For a simple read tool this is adequate but minimal.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It is front-loaded with the key information ('Get details of a character') and every word contributes to its meaning. Conciseness is excellent 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?

For a tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain parameter semantics, what the return value looks like, or how it differs in use from list_characters. An agent would need to infer critical details about how to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining what 'id' and 'campaignId' mean. It only mentions 'character', which hints that 'id' is the character ID, but 'campaignId' is left completely unexplained. The description does not add enough meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 'Get details of a character' uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('character'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_quest or get_location. It is unambiguous and not a tautology, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'details' includes, which prevents a top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_characters or search. It does not state that this tool should be used when a specific character ID is already known, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is a clear gap.

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