Retrieve the characters, animals, and objects with locked visual identities in Continuity to keep subjects consistent across generated images, speech, and music.
列出已定妆的角色、动物和物件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| subjects | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| error_code | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 列出 implies a read-only list operation, which gives basic safety context, but it does not disclose pagination, return size, or other behavioral details.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and scope with no wasted words.
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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the finalized-only scope. A brief note on how it relates to sibling listing tools would close the remaining gap.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.
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 states a specific verb (列出) and resource (角色、动物和物件), and the qualifier 已定妆 narrows the scope. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic subject listing, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_actors.
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: the tool lists finalized characters, animals, and objects. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like list_actors for unfinalized actors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.