ddb_get_party

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that login is required, which is a meaningful behavioral requirement. It also specifies the return contents (HP, AC, initiative, etc.). It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but the annotation already covers safety, and the added auth and return details go beyond the structured metadata.

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 just two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and return details; the second adds the login prerequisite. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what data it returns, and the auth prerequisite. It could mention failure modes or edge cases, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage for campaign_id with a clear description ('found in the campaign URL'). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly states the resource: a compact summary of every character in a campaign. It also distinguishes this bulk operation from single-character tools like ddb_get_character and from campaign-level tools like ddb_get_campaign, and enumerates exactly what fields are returned.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to get the whole party in one call, including the type of data returned. It also provides a prerequisite ('run ddb_login first if you haven't already'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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