get_subject_persons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits), so it meets the baseline expectation without adding value.

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, well-front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists) and the annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is adequate. It does not need to explain return values as the output schema is present. The description is complete enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 single parameter 'subject_id' is fully described in the schema ('条目ID' meaning entry ID) with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so it achieves the baseline score.

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 action ('获取', get) and the resource ('条目相关人员信息列表', list of related personnel information for an entry), making the tool's purpose identifiable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subject_characters' or 'get_person_subjects', which also retrieve related entity lists.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or contexts where it is preferred. It simply states the functionality without any usage advice.

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