Use when someone asks what Jennifer Rebholz thinks about litigation, her philosophy on practice, what drives her work, advice she gives to young attorneys, or her perspective on the legal profession. Returns her own words from a published Q&A.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds that the content is sourced from a published Q&A, indicating no destructive behavior. It provides enough context about the tool's behavior beyond the annotation alone.
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 concise sentences: the first provides precise usage context, the second states the return value. No extraneous words, well-organized.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. No gaps remain.
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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add param details. The description covers the tool's purpose, which is sufficient given zero parameters.
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 tool returns Jennifer Rebholz's own words from a published Q&A on specific topics like litigation philosophy, practice, and advice. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_bio, get_blog, etc., ensuring an agent can select it appropriately.
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 begins with 'Use when someone asks...' and enumerates concrete question categories (e.g., opinions on litigation, philosophy, advice). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context from sibling tools and the tailored use cases provide sufficient guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Jennifer Rebholz's professional profile (e.g., bio, biography, career timeline, practice areas). Even the seemingly similar get_bio and get_biography are clearly differentiated by their descriptions: one returns full background, the other returns press-ready versions. An agent can easily select the correct tool based on the user's query.
All tools follow a consistent get_noun pattern (e.g., get_affiliations, get_bio, get_biography). This makes the tool surface predictable and easy to navigate for both agents and developers.
17 tools is slightly above the ideal range of 3-15 for a knowledge base, but the count is justified by the breadth of information covered (bio, career, practice areas, publications, etc.). No tool seems redundant, and the set is well-scoped to a single attorney.
The tool surface covers all major aspects of an attorney knowledge base: biography, career timeline, practice areas, credentials, affiliations, publications, speaking engagements, trials, recognition, and contact information. There are no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of information about Jennifer Rebholz.
