Premium: write a plain-language coaching narrative for one person or a pair, synthesized from all 21 frameworks. Billed at 5x a normal tool call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| focus | No | ||
| length | No | ||
| person | Yes | ||
| context | No | ||
| audience | No | ||
| compare_with | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides meaningful disclosure: it is premium, billed at 5x a normal tool call, and synthesized across all 21 frameworks. This gives cost and sourcing context beyond the schema, though it does not mention side effects or auth requirements.
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?
Two sentences, 26 words, with the core purpose and the most important constraint (billing) front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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?
Despite being a relatively complex tool with six undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description gives no parameter semantics, no invocation examples, and no explanation of what the narrative output looks like. An agent would struggle to form correct arguments.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. The 'one person or a pair' phrase hints at person and compare_with, but focus, length, context, and audience are left entirely to the agent to infer from names.
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 names a specific verb ('write'), resource ('coaching narrative'), scope ('one person or a pair'), and source ('synthesized from all 21 frameworks'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling profile, relationship, and compatibility tools.
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 implies this is for producing a synthesized narrative and labels it as premium, but it never states when to choose it over siblings like score_compatibility or create_profile. There is no explicit when/when-not 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 clearly distinct operation: profile management, self-profile access, listing, relationship listing, compatibility scoring, and narrative generation. Even get_my_profile versus get_profile is unambiguous because the descriptions clearly separate the signed-in user from other profiles.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as create_profile, get_profile, list_profiles, and score_compatibility. generate_narrative also fits the pattern despite being a different kind of operation.
Seven tools is a well-scoped size for a relationship/profile intelligence server. Each tool addresses a meaningful part of the workflow without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
The core lifecycle is covered: create, retrieve, list, and score profiles and relationships. The main gaps are the lack of update/delete operations for profiles and pairings, but agents can still complete primary workflows.