Returns Vocab Voyage's lifecycle-aware guidance: the user's current phase (e.g. student.at_risk), a friendly greeting, 2–3 recommended tool calls, and an optional CTA. Renders the session-debrief widget on supporting hosts. Anonymous callers get visitor.* phase suggestions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| persona | No | Optional persona override: student | parent | tutor | explorer. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but description adds valuable context: it renders the session-debrief widget (a side-effect on client) and handles anonymous callers with visitor.* phase. This goes beyond annotation info and helps the agent understand behavioral traits.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main return content and then cover widget rendering and anonymous behavior. Every sentence adds unique value, no wasted words.
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?
The description explains the return values (phase, greeting, recommendations, CTA) and mentions widget rendering and anonymous handling. Without an output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's output, though a formal structure or example would improve completeness.
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 schema coverage is 100%, and the schema description for the only parameter 'persona' is clear. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns lifecycle-aware guidance including phase, greeting, recommended tool calls, and optional CTA. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_recommended_next_action by mentioning widget rendering and anonymous visitor handling.
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 usage in the context of Vocab Voyage for session debrief, but does not explicitly compare with similar tools like get_recommended_next_action or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on alternatives.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. A few pairs like study_plan_preview vs get_study_plan_recommendation or get_definition vs explain_word_in_context have subtle overlaps, but descriptions effectively differentiate them.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are longer but follow the same structure. No mixing of conventions, though the variety of verbs is high.
31 tools is on the high side for a vocabulary server. The scope is broad (definition, quizzes, games, progress, parent/tutor features), but many tools are specific, making the set feel heavy. It earns its count but could be trimmed.
The tool surface covers most user needs: learning, testing, progress tracking, parental involvement, and support. Minor gaps like class management or deletion operations exist, but core vocabulary workflows are complete.