Character Get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context that the character sheet structure varies by campaign system (5e/PF2e/SR6/CoC7e), which is not visible from the input schema alone. However, it does not discuss error behavior, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is read-only, though '读' strongly implies it.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the important schema-variation caveat in parentheses. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It conveys full-sheet retrieval and system-dependent schemas, which is enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance distinguishing it from character_list.

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 should compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description does not explain character_id, its format, or how it relates to campaign-specific schemas. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no direct semantic value beyond implying that a character must be identified.

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 '读' (read) and the resource '角色卡全量' (full character sheet), making the tool's core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like character_list, though '全量' implies it returns complete sheet data rather than a summary list.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as character_list or character_validate. The description implies full-sheet retrieval but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria relative to sibling tools.

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