List imported characters

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the return shape and result ordering, but says nothing about volume, pagination, or behavior on an empty import history.

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 compact fragment with the resource front-loaded, then the fields, then the ordering. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields and sort order, which is exactly what is otherwise undiscoverable. Only small gaps remain, such as result limits and empty-state 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing parameter-level to explain and the baseline is 4. The parenthetical field list is a reasonable substitute, documenting what each row conceptually contains.

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 states a concrete resource (characters imported earlier) and the fields returned (characterId, label, when) plus ordering (newest first). It clearly reads as a read/list operation, but it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling import_character, which is the natural confusion point.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'imported earlier' signals this surfaces previously imported characters rather than doing the import. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to import_character for adding entries, leaving the agent to infer the pairing.

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