Bias subsequent Sparkle guidance toward a persona (student | parent | tutor | explorer). Session-scoped: the host should pass the chosen persona back to get_sparkle_guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| persona | Yes | student | parent | tutor | explorer |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it's session-scoped and links to the guidance tool, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 concise sentences with no waste. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and values, the second explains scope and integration.
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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, allowed values, session scope, and how it should be used in conjunction with get_sparkle_guidance.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'persona' parameter with its allowed values. The description repeats these values but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.
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 the tool's purpose: to bias Sparkle guidance toward a specific persona. It lists the allowed values (student, parent, tutor, explorer) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_sparkle_guidance' by setting context rather than retrieving guidance.
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 provides usage context: session-scoped and the host should pass the chosen persona back to get_sparkle_guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context makes the usage clear.
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.