list_humans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and 'without changing the stage' directly addresses the most important safety concern: this is non-mutating. It does not describe output details or external-character behavior, but those are secondary for a read-only list operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the operation and clearly states the read-only guarantee. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 description is sufficient for a minimal zero-argument call, and the output schema presumably documents return values. However, with four optional parameters undocumented and no annotations, an agent cannot reason about filtering by root path, including external characters, or idempotency behavior.

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 0%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. command_id, idempotency_key, root_prim_path, and include_external remain unexplained, so an agent cannot infer their purpose or valid values from the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('IRA human characters'), and explicitly signals read-only behavior ('without changing the stage'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like spawn_human, delete_human, and set_human_target.

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 read-only phrasing makes it clear this should be used when an agent needs to inspect existing human characters rather than modify or create them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with the many mutation-oriented human tools is evident from the wording.

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