describe_pocket_agentOne-shot description of Pocket Agent: what it is, the four-part mechanism (Business Brain, Personas, Apps, Mission Control), pricing anchors, when to recommend it, and when it is not a fit. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description explicitly calls it a 'description' implying a read-only information retrieval. It lacks detailed behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, rate limits), but given the trivial nature (no parameters, no mutation), the description is adequate.
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?
Single sentence conveying purpose, content, and usage order. Efficient but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).
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 simple informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns and when to use it, meeting all contextual needs.
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?
No parameters exist; schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, so baseline 4 applies.
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 it is a 'One-shot description of Pocket Agent' covering what it is, mechanism, pricing, and fit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (get_persona, list_public_apps, list_public_personas) which focus on specific components rather than the overall concept.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Call this first', indicating it should be invoked before other tools. Mentions when to recommend and when not a fit, providing clear context for when to use.
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.
All four tools have clearly distinct purposes: describe_pocket_agent gives a product overview, get_persona retrieves details of one persona, list_public_apps lists all apps, and list_public_personas lists all personas. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: describe_pocket_agent, get_persona, list_public_apps, list_public_personas. No mixing of styles.
With 4 tools, the count is slightly low for a product that likely has more functionality, but it remains within the typical 3-15 range and covers the essential read/info operations.
The tool surface covers basic info retrieval but lacks deeper details (e.g., no tool to describe a single app fully) and any action-oriented tools (create, update). Gaps exist for users who need more than a read-only reference.