Get Face

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'details' of a face, but doesn't elaborate on what those details include, error conditions, or authentication needs. With annotations doing most of the work, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. Every word serves a purpose, achieving maximum efficiency without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'details' include or how this differs from other get operations, leaving gaps in completeness. With annotations covering safety and behavior, it meets the minimum viable threshold but could be more informative.

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%, with the parameter 'face_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a face ID is or where to find it. Since the schema already provides adequate documentation, the baseline score of 3 is correct, as no additional parameter semantics are offered.

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 resource ('details of a specific face'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'dual_get_object' or 'dual_get_template_faces', which also retrieve specific resources. A more specific distinction would elevate this to a 5.

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'dual_list_faces' for listing faces and 'dual_get_object' for retrieving objects, there's no indication that this tool is specifically for face details. This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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