st.character.inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation, which rules out mutation concerns, but it offers no detail on return shape, error behavior, or any non-obvious behavior. The disclosure is minimal yet not misleading.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action first and then the result scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter read tool the description is close to adequate, but it lacks an explanation of the 'avatar' parameter and does not mention how a valid avatar value is obtained. With no output schema, the description also leaves the exact return contents only vaguely specified through 'core editable field list'.

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 schema has one required parameter, 'avatar', with 0% description coverage and no enum or format details. The description does not compensate by explaining what 'avatar' should be, where to obtain it, or how it identifies a character, so an agent must infer its meaning from the name alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one character card'), and a specific scope ('core editable field list'). It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like st.character.list and st.character.configure by targeting a single card for reading.

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 intended use is implied: inspect a single character card when you need its editable fields. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over st.character.list or how it relates to st.character.configure, leaving selection partly to inference.

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