get_persona

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral fact that omitting persona_file falls back to a default persona, and that it returns full content, but says nothing about error behavior (e.g., missing file), whether the path is resolved against working_directory, or that the call has no side effects.

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-loads the purpose and usage in the first two lines, then uses conventional Args/Returns sections. Slightly padded by docstring formatting, but every line carries 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 two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema already covering the return shape, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and defaults. Only edge-case behavior (missing file, path resolution) is left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains persona_file's purpose, format, an example path, and its default fallback, plus working_directory's role and default. It omits only finer details like path resolution rules and relative-vs-absolute handling.

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+resource ('Get the code reviewer persona') and clarifies the scope ('that will be used for reviews'). It distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings like review_diff by framing itself as a pre-review inspection step, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

'Use this to view or verify the persona before running a review' gives clear context for when to invoke it relative to the review workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but the usage window is unambiguous.

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