Get character entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: credentials are removed from system data, game data is kept, lookup order is items→actions→effects, and duplicate names are reported with ids instead of picking one. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs three important behavioral details (lookup order, data filtering, duplicate handling) efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what data is returned (description, system data with credentials removed, effects), how lookup works, and how duplicates are handled. The only minor gap is not describing the exact response shape, but the absence of an output schema and the read-only nature make this acceptable.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds context about what entityIdentifier can be (id or exact name for items/effects, name for actions) and that characterIdentifier accepts id, exact name, or token id, but this largely mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('full data of one item, action or effect of an actor'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get-character, get-document, and get-compendium-item by specifying the entity types and actor scoping. It also explains the lookup order (items first, then actions, then effects), which removes ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: to retrieve full data for an actor's item, action, or effect. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the lookup order and the note about duplicate names provide practical guidance. Sibling tools like get-character and get-document are implicitly distinguished by the entity types covered.

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