get_subject_persons

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 mentions the tool 'List persons' and returns a 'Formatted list', but does not specify behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or what the format entails (e.g., pagination, error handling details). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it safely and effectively.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral transparency and detailed usage guidelines. Without annotations or an output schema, it should do more to explain the return format and operational context, making it only adequate for minimal use.

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 description adds meaning by explaining that 'subject_id' is 'The ID of the subject', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type ('integer'). However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this minimal addition provides some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema details, such as valid ranges or examples.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('persons related to a subject'), and distinguishes the type of persons ('staff, cast'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_person_subjects' or 'get_subject_characters', which handle related but different relationships.

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 implies usage by specifying the required 'subject_id' parameter, suggesting it should be used when you have a subject ID to find related persons. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_persons' or 'get_person_details', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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