avatars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that 'list' returns all avatars with id, name, gender and that 'get' requires avatar_id. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, auth requirements, or side effects. The description is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 relatively concise, fitting key information in a few sentences. It front-loads the purpose and required note, then lists actions. However, the structure could be improved with bullet points for clarity, and some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating REQUIRED).

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 description explains actions and parameter requirements but does not cover return values for all actions (e.g., 'get' says 'get details' but not what details). No output schema exists, so this gap is notable. Error handling and edge cases are also unaddressed, leaving the tool somewhat incomplete for complex use.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It effectively explains how each action uses parameters (e.g., 'list' uses no extra params, 'get' uses avatar_id, 'list_groups' uses include_public, 'list_in_group' requires group_id). This significantly augments the schema.

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 tool is for getting avatars (AI personas) for video generation. It distinguishes from sibling tools (assets, folders, etc.) by focusing on avatars. The actions are enumerated with specific purposes, providing a clear verb+resource description.

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 explicit guidance on workflow: start with 'list', then use 'get' for details. It notes required parameters for each action and includes tips like 'include_public=true for public'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives among siblings.

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