Character List

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: no creation or roster changes on repeat calls, the successful return shape {ok:true,data}, failure shape {ok:false,error}, and the distinction between tool-body failures and MCP argument-schema errors. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences and every sentence earns its place: what it does, sibling routing, idempotency/read-only guarantee, and return/error behavior. The primary purpose is front-loaded, 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 zero-parameter list operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation's scope, safety, idempotency, return format, error format, and the relationship to sibling tools—everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; the schema already reflects an empty parameter set. There is no gap requiring compensation.

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 and resource: "List the configured campaign roster to discover character IDs and assignments." It also differentiates itself from character_get and character_create, so an agent can distinguish it from close siblings without opening their schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives: "Use character_get for one full sheet or character_create to add a sheet." It also clarifies that the operation is read-only and safe on repeat calls, giving clear context for invocation.

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