get_character_ability

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does state that this is a read/query operation ('조회'), implying no side effects. Yet it adds no further behavioral context such as what happens without a date, whether ocid must come from get_character_ocid, or any response-level details. The single verb is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource. It is concise without being a tautology.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with a small parameter set and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits usage context, such as how to obtain ocid or how ability differs from related character stat tools. The description is adequate but leaves the large sibling toolset largely undifferentiated.

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 100%, so both parameters (ocid and date) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full explanatory burden.

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 a specific action ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and a specific resource ('캐릭터 어빌리티(내부 능력)' / character ability). This distinguishes it from sibling stat, propensity, and hyper-stat tools at a basic level. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any named alternative.

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 siblings such as get_character_stat or get_character_propensity. It mentions no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions. An agent must rely entirely on the tool's name and the schema to infer appropriate usage.

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