character_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: 'Changes nothing.' It also reveals that the returned data reflects constraints character_create enforces, giving useful behavioral context. It doesn't discuss failure modes or data source, but for a zero-parameter read-only menu tool the disclosure is strong.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The key fact ('Changes nothing') is front-loaded, the detailed return contents are compactly enumerated, and the usage rule closes the description. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description exhaustively enumerates all returned data: origins with coins/languages/weapon tables, backgrounds with id/name/bonus/feature/unique flag, armour categories, and selection constraints. Combined with explicit usage guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and apply this tool 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed or possible, and the description correctly focuses on return content rather than input semantics.

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 ('Read') and resource ('legal character-creation menu'), and explicitly says it changes nothing, clearly distinguishing it from mutation siblings like character_create and character_advance.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call it ('before guiding a player through character creation'), how to use the results ('offer only options it lists'), and provides an exclusion rule ('never recite origins or backgrounds from memory'). This fully routes the agent away from alternatives.

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