CastMyAgent Personas

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description earns credit for adding return content (system prompt, character brief, style configuration) and licensing terms, which matter for downstream reuse, though it says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded action statement first, then return contents, then licensing. It is tight overall, but 'free' is stated twice ('one free persona pack' and 'The pack is free'), which is minor waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the three returned artifacts, and the single parameter is fully documented by the schema. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing, though sibling routing would round it out.

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% and the slug property already carries a worked example (otis-code-reviewer), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the prepositional phrase 'by slug', no format, casing, or lookup semantics beyond what's in 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?

States a specific verb and resource: load one persona pack by slug, and it lists what comes back (system prompt, character brief, style config). The scope word 'one' implicitly separates it from the list/search siblings, but it never names them, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single pack when you already have a slug. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_personas or search_personas, nor any prerequisite about obtaining a valid slug first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned field set (slug, name, role, department, summary, roster URL), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination or result-size limits.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, optional filter second, return shape third. No filler or 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?

For a simple zero-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the filter, and the return fields. A minor gap is the absence of any sibling-differentiation guidance and pagination behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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% and the single optional 'department' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the roster-code-or-label convention. The description only repeats 'optionally filter by department' without adding syntax or accepted-value detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('persona packs'), plus the scope ('free') and the filterable dimension ('department'). It doesn't explicitly name get_persona or search_personas as alternatives, so an agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone.

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?

'Optionally filter by department' implies the primary usage, and 'List' versus sibling 'get_persona'/'search_personas' hints at the enumeration case. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over search_personas, or any exclusion (e.g., when you already know the slug).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results are 'free' packs and that matching happens against role and specialties, which is minor added context but no pagination, result cap, or ordering behavior.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action and the matching behavior are front-loaded in the first line and the qualifier follows immediately.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with complete schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is sibling routing and any result-limit behavior, which is a minor omission for a tool this simple.

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 is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'keyword' fully. The description only restates the same matching semantics, adding no format, matching-mode, or example detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (free persona packs) and the matching basis (role and specialties). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings get_persona or list_personas, but the search-by-keyword framing clarifies it well enough to pick apart from a list or single-fetch tool.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by keyword' – you call it when you have a search term – but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools that would cover browsing (list_personas) or fetching one (get_persona). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.