Get character summary

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining character resolution, the active-character fallback, and the summarized output scope. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the active-character behavior stated without filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 strong annotations and the tool's relatively simple purpose, the description covers the key resolution behavior and the content of the summary. It does not detail the exact output shape, but there is no output schema, and the stated summary scope is reasonably sufficient for invocation.

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 description adds important meaning by clarifying that identity fields can be omitted to use the active character, which helps with the four-parameter schema where none are required. However, schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented meaning of name and serverRegion.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: resolving a character and summarizing its recent report availability and content types. It conveys a clear function, though it does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings such as get_recent_reports or get_player_analysis_context.

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 usage through the resolution and summarization framing, and it provides one concrete invocation guideline: omit all identity fields to target the active character. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over related sibling tools or when to avoid it.

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