list_characters_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. A single sentence says nothing about pagination behavior, auth requirements, ordering, or result limits — meaningful gaps for a listing tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words and the purpose is front-loaded, but the extreme terseness leaves essential context unstated — this reads as under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a simple paginated list does not demand much prose. Still, pagination behavior and the scope of 'trained Soul characters' (ownership, filtering) are left ambiguous.

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% and the description adds nothing about the two parameters (page, page_size). It does not explain pagination semantics or the meaning of page defaults, so it fails to compensate for the 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?

States a clear verb (List) and a specific resource (trained Soul characters), which distinguishes it from list_jobs_tool, list_soul_styles_tool, and list_motions_tool. However, it never explicitly names a sibling or scope condition, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 on when to use this versus get_character_tool or the other list_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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