Character List

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 only labels the tool as a roster and does not mention whether the call is read-only, whether it reflects the current campaign or session, whether results are filtered, or how characters are ordered. A 'list' implies a read operation, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise with no filler content. It is a single short phrase that communicates the essential resource. It could be improved by adding a verb or a brief behavioral note, but as written it is not bloated.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is near-minimally viable: an agent can infer that calling it with no arguments returns a roster. However, it does not clarify whether the roster applies to the current campaign, whether it includes all character types, or whether any implicit context is required, leaving some ambiguity.

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 input schema is empty with additionalProperties false. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to provide parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 '角色列表（战役 roster）' communicates that this tool returns a campaign-level roster of characters, which is slightly more specific than the title alone. However, it lacks a verb and largely restates the name, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like character_get or creature_search.

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. The 'campaign roster' phrase implies a general listing use case, but there is no explicit instruction such as 'use character_get for a single character' or 'use creature_search for monsters.'

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