get_person_characters

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits). Given the annotations provide sufficient safety information, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value beyond the structured data.

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 a single, concise sentence with no waste. However, it could be slightly reordered to front-load the most critical information (e.g., the verb and resource are already at the start). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but lacks supplementary 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, an output schema (not shown), and clear annotations, the description is reasonably complete for its simplicity. It states the output is a '角色列表' (character list). Without the output schema, it might be less clear, but since the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the structure. The missing context about the exact relationship (e.g., 'characters portrayed by the person') slightly lowers the score.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter person_id with a basic description ('人物ID'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter. The baseline score of 3 is correct as schema coverage is high and the description adds nothing extra.

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 retrieves a list of characters related to a person. The verb '获取' and resource '角色列表' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_subject_characters or get_character_persons, leaving some ambiguity about the exact relationship.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_subject_characters, get_character_persons), the description should clarify the use case (e.g., 'for getting characters played by a person'). The current description is insufficient.

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