Given a persona slug (from list_personas), return everything tagged with it: persona, use_cases[], rankings[], compares[], toolkits[], tools[]. Mirrors a persona landing page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Persona slug, e.g. "students". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read operation by stating 'return everything tagged with it' and describes the output structure. It doesn't explicitly confirm read-only or mention rate limits, but the 'mirrors a persona landing page' adds behavioral context.
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 two sentences with no redundant words. The main action is front-loaded, and the structure is highly efficient, earning a top score.
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?
The tool returns multiple related entities, and the description lists them all (persona, use_cases, rankings, etc.). Since there is no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent of the return structure. It doesn't cover pagination or sorting, but the scope is reasonable for this aggregated tool.
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 coverage is 100% (slug described in schema). The description adds value by specifying that the slug comes from list_personas and provides an example ('students'), which aids correct parameter usage beyond the schema's brief description.
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 ('return') and resource ('everything tagged with persona slug'), clearly listing all returned components (persona, use_cases, rankings, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_personas (list all) and get_tool (single tool) by indicating it aggregates multiple related entities.
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 states to obtain the slug from list_personas, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't discuss when not to use it or alternatives like get_use_case for individual components, but the instruction is sufficient for correct invocations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct entity or action: list tools enumerate different content types, get tools retrieve specific entities, search finds across the catalogue, compare_tools does head-to-head comparison, and the two cross-reference tools (rankings_for_tool and tools_in_ranking) are inverse operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, compare_tools, search), but 'rankings_for_tool' and 'tools_in_ranking' deviate with a noun_prep_noun pattern. These two are internally consistent with each other and remain readable, so the overall convention is only slightly disrupted.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a catalogue covering seven entity types, search, comparison, and cross-references. Each tool has a distinct role and none are redundant, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
The tool surface covers all major content types with list and get (except categories and toolkits, which only have list endpoints), plus search, comparison, and inverse cross-references. Minor gaps like missing get_toolkit or get_category are workaround-able since list_toolkits and list_categories expose sufficient metadata.
