avatar_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses non-mutation of the MD scene and 'Read' signals a side-effect-free operation. For a simple zero-parameter read tool, this is sufficient transparency; more detail about output format would elevate it further.

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 extremely concise: one sentence states exactly what is read, and a second sentence states the key safety property. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description names the categories of output (count, names, runtime properties) and its non-mutating nature, which is enough for an agent to select and call it correctly. Slightly more explicit return-format details could improve it, but none are essential for invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is needed in the description.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('avatar'), and lists the returned content: count, names, and runtime properties. It also distinguishes itself from mutating tools by explicitly stating it does not mutate the MD scene.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever avatar count, names, or runtime properties are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, especially given the large sibling list containing scene_info, environment_info, and project_info.

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