Get Character Sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific error behavior (raises ValueError if no character named or name mismatch) and return format. It doesn't contradict annotations, and adds useful behavioral context beyond the safety flags.

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?

Description is longer than typical but every paragraph adds essential info: purpose, usage context, error semantics, return structure. Well-structured with clear paragraphs. Slightly verbose but justified.

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 simple tool, it fully explains what it returns, when to call, error casesable. No output schema, so description covers return dict. Sibling tools are distinct (mutating actions vs this read-only query). Complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description comprehensively explains player_name: exact match requirement, error conditions, and relationship to name_character. This is far beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it reads the current character sheet with specific contents (cross, goal, debt row, goal_completed), and distinguishes itself from siblings as read-only state access. The verb 'Read' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call any time you need to check saved state rather than re-deriving it' and gives concrete examples like checking interpretation before complete_goal or checking goal_completed to decide campaign closure. Also states read-only nature and error conditions.

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