KPN Persona Runtime

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that it performs no actions. It adds value by specifying the return fields (name, affiliation, expertise, public intent, issuer signature), which are not in the schema. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides necessary information. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its read-only nature. Annotations provide safety cues. Complete and sufficient.

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% with a clear description for the 'did' parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb (조회/query) and resource (페르소나 명함/persona card by DID), and lists the included fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sync_persona_card' by emphasizing it is read-only.

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 states the tool is for information lookup only, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'query_persona_decision' or 'verify_persona_did'. It lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that it never performs actual actions (confirming read-only nature) and discloses special handling of private/sensitive queries (returning 'hold'). No contradictions.

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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, behavioral constraints, and private query handling. No redundant information.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects and limitations. The term '보류' could be clarified, but overall it's sufficient for agent invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both did and question. The description adds a helpful example for the question parameter ('이 제휴 제안을 수락할까요?'), enriching meaning beyond schema alone.

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 advises on 'How would this person decide?' to a persona, distinguishing it from siblings like get_persona_card or verify_persona_did. The verb 'query' plus 'persona_decision' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states it only provides advice and never performs actions (payment, transfer, device control), and that private questions are held. This guides when to use vs alternatives, though it could be more explicit about when not to use this tool.

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 show destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, which together with the description clarify this is a safe write operation. The description explicitly states it performs no external actions beyond data update, providing behavioral clarity beyond 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value, and the description is well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, behavior, and limitations. While it omits details about the return value, this is not critical for a sync operation. The description is sufficiently complete for its 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 description coverage is 100% (the 'did' parameter is described). The tool description does not add extra semantics about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly specifies the action 'synchronizes' and the resource 'runtime of the given DID'. It distinguishes from siblings: get_persona_card is read-only, query_persona_decision is query, verify_persona_did is verification; sync_persona_card is a state-update operation.

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 explains the tool's purpose (ensure current persona data) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context of siblings and the clear purpose guide usage adequately.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's non-destructive nature is clear. The description adds that it returns SIGNATURE_MISMATCH on tampering and that it doesn't perform actions, which is consistent but not expansive 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?

Three concise sentences in Korean. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the core function, describing the effect of tampering, and providing usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters (one optional object) and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it verifies, when to use it, the return value on failure, and the read-only nature. It could optionally mention the success return value or more details about the registry fallback, but it's sufficient for typical use.

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 both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds behavioral context for cardPayload: if omitted, it uses the registry-stored version. This goes beyond just repeating schema descriptions, providing meaningful guidance on optional parameter usage.

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: verifying if a presented persona card is authentic by checking the issuer's signature. It also explicitly mentions the return value on tampering (SIGNATURE_MISMATCH). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_persona_card (retrieval) and sync_persona_card (synchronization).

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when checking if an agent is impersonating' and notes that it is verification-only and does not perform actions. This helps the agent decide when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives.

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