List AI characters

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral details: it costs no credits, supports three different listing modes, and returns items with specified fields plus pagination. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope semantics, return shape, and cost. Each sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 simple read-only list tool with no required parameters, the description covers the available scopes, the default behavior, return fields, pagination, and credit cost. Since there is no output schema, the enumerated return fields are especially valuable and sufficient for an agent to interpret results.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining what each scope value returns, which is the most important parameter behavior. Other parameters like page and per_page remain adequately covered by the 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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List ClipUGC AI characters (AI influencers).' It also explains the scope variants and notes the CLI equivalence, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_images.

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 for each scope value ('mine' lists own characters, 'discover' lists the public feed, 'feed' prioritizes own characters). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the scope guidance makes usage conditions clear.

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