list_characters

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation and the filter condition is disclosed, but nothing is said about ordering, whether the result is a full or partial set, or what a 'character' record contains. It covers the safe basics but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the scope qualifier second. Every word earns its place and nothing is repeated from the name or schema.

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 and side-effect-free, so the description is nearly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description never indicates what identifying fields a returned character has, which is the main piece an agent would still need.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is complete by construction. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, matching the baseline for a zero-param tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all characters') plus a qualifying scope ('that have tracked chores'), so an agent can distinguish it from list_tasks and list_resets. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting with one explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 scope phrase implies when the tool applies: when you need the set of characters that have chores tracked. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement about whether a broader character listing exists elsewhere among the siblings.

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