get_party

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'active character info' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It could be slightly improved by structuring it to highlight key details, but it's appropriately sized and avoids redundancy.

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 complexity (retrieving detailed party data), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (partyId, sessionId) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'partyId' or 'sessionId' are, their formats, or why 'sessionId' is optional. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a party with all member details, leader, and active character info.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('party') along with what data is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_party_context' or 'get_party_members', which might retrieve similar or overlapping data.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_party_context', 'get_party_members', 'list_parties'), there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or context, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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