get_avatars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the scope ('in the scene') and the returned data fields, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or what happens when no avatars exist. For a simple list operation this is minimally adequate.

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 sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the output details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, simple list operation), the description is nearly complete. It states the scope and mentions the returned fields, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It could be slightly more explicit about the shape of the returned list, but this is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 and the schema trivially covers 100% of them, so no parameter documentation is needed from the description. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('avatars in the scene') and even states the output fields (names and genders). The scope 'in the scene' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_avatar or show_avatar, which add or display avatars rather than list them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_avatar or import_avatar. The description implies a read-only list operation, but it never explicitly states conditions or provides exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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