Token details

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: hidden tokens are included in reads, the exact field scope is disclosed, and the exclusion of actor statistics is stated. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences carry a lot of signal with no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical field lists are compact and useful rather than redundant.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what will be returned and what will not, and the input schema covers parameter usage. The only omitted item is error behavior, which is not essential for a simple, read-only, idempotent lookup.

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 100%, so the baseline applies; both tokenId and sceneIdentifier are fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not need to restate the parameters, and it adds no extra semantics beyond the conceptual 'token' and 'actor' scope.

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 starts with a concrete verb and resource ('Read one token') and precisely enumerates what is returned: position, size, appearance, behaviour, and actor-link status. It also names get-character as the sibling that covers actor values, so the agent can distinguish it from nearby read tools.

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?

It implies when to use the tool (reading token presentation/behaviour data) and explicitly says when not to use it for actor stats ('No actor values such as hit points; get-character reads those'). It could more explicitly name alternatives for scene/position queries, but the guidance is clear.

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