ddb_get_character

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the two output modes (compact vs. full), which is useful, but it does not disclose read-only nature, error behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. This is a gap, though partially mitigated by the simple read-like nature of the 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?

Two focused sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then clarify the optional full mode. No filler or redundant phrasing; every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes what the agent will receive (HP/AC/conditions snapshot, or full sheet). It could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., character access), but these are minor gaps given the simplicity and clear parameter explanation.

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 coverage is 50%: the `full` parameter already has a description, and the description adds a bit more detail (listing the parsed fields). The `ddbCharId` parameter lacks schema description but is self-explanatory (numeric ID) and the description reiterates it. The description adds marginal value beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('character sheet') with a clear scope (by numeric ID). It naturally distinguishes from siblings like ddb_get_monster (monster data) and ddb_list_campaign_characters (list of characters) by focusing on a single character sheet.

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 when to use the tool (when you need a character sheet by ID) and clarifies the full parameter, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool in favor of siblings. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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