get_personaA single public persona template by slug: role, tone, starter prompt, default apps, the full 12-section spec, and which sections an owner customizes when cloning it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Persona template slug, as returned by list_public_personas (e.g. "sales"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns (full spec) but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for a read operation.
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, well-structured, front-loaded with purpose. Every word contributes meaning; no redundancy.
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?
Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Description covers return content comprehensively. Could mention error cases, but completeness is acceptable given complexity.
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% (single param slug). Description adds value by specifying the slug source (list_public_personas) and providing an example ('sales'), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly specifies the verb 'get' (implied), resource 'public persona template', and details the content returned (role, tone, starter prompt, default apps, full 12-section spec, customization sections). Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_public_personas (list vs single) and describe_pocket_agent (different resource).
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?
Implies usage when you have a slug from list_public_personas, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor provide exclusions or prerequisites.
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.