get_faces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format in detail (dictionary mapping person names to lists of filenames), which is a key behavioral trait. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation via 'Get', though it does not explicitly state there are no side effects or edge cases (e.g., empty dictionary when no faces are registered). For a simple getter, this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then a concise explanation of the return structure. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 getter with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It clearly defines the purpose and return format without requiring additional context. There are no complex edge cases or sibling interactions to explain, making the description sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds useful context about the output structure, which complements the empty input schema, though parameter-specific semantics are not needed since there are no parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all registered face names and their image filenames', with an explicit scope (all) and the returned structure (dictionary mapping). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_labels or get_recognized_license_plates by focusing on face names and filenames.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this tool when you need all registered face names and their associated image filenames. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternative tools (e.g., if you need a single face or events, use get_event or get_labels). The lack of explicit alternatives keeps it at an implied level.

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