list_public_personasThe public persona template registry that ships in Pocket Agent: slug, name, role, description, a sample question, and the apps each role uses by default. Use get_persona for a full spec.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It clearly describes a read-only list operation with no side effects. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but for a simple listing with no parameters, this is sufficient.
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, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value, 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?
No output schema, but the description lists the fields returned. Missing details like pagination or ordering, but for a tool listing a fixed registry of public personas, this is adequately complete.
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?
There are 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists public persona templates and enumerates the fields returned (slug, name, role, description, sample question, apps). It distinguishes from sibling get_persona by directing users there for a full spec.
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 implicitly guides usage by noting that get_persona provides the full spec, implying this tool is for summaries. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or provide alternative scenarios.
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.