gflow_character_show

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only and spends no credits', which is a clear behavioral disclosure. It also explains that ambiguous name results in an error rather than guessing, which is useful error behavior. It mentions 'Drives a browser session', which hints at side effects but is vague. Overall, it discloses key behaviors beyond the schema.

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 concise—three sentences with minimal waste. Purpose is front-loaded. The phrase 'Drives a browser session' is slightly vague but not redundant. The structure is efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 output schema exists, return format isn't needed. However, with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description omits explanations for 'project' and 'profile', which are essential for invocation. The phrase 'Drives a browser session' is unclear—does it open a browser, require a browser environment, or simply indicate a dependency? This ambiguity could affect correct usage in different environments.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains entity_id and name semantics (by id or exact display name) and notes exactly one is required, but it does not explain 'project' (which is required) or 'profile' (defaulted to 'default'). These remain unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning or values.

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 shows one saved Flow CHARACTER entity, specifying selection by id or exact display name. This distinguishes it from sister tools like gflow_character_list (which likely lists multiple) and gflow_character_voices (which deals with voices). The verb 'Show' plus resource 'Flow CHARACTER entity' gives precise purpose.

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 parameter usage guidance: exactly one of entity_id or name is required, and ambiguous names cause an error, prefer id. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gflow_character_list or when not to use it. The context implies it's for fetching a single entity's details, but no explicit 'use this instead of X' is provided.

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