get_tone_of_voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the operation is a read-only retrieval ('Retrieves'), and specifies the content scope (tone of voice rules). For a zero-parameter getter, this is adequate transparency without hidden 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?

Two concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded ('Retrieves...') and usage guidance immediately following. No redundant or filler content, every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns and how to use it. No missing information that would impair selection or 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate because the empty schema is entirely self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') with a clear resource ('Code-Me tone of voice rules and language guidelines'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_brand_identity and get_visual_guidelines by focusing on tone/language, making its purpose 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 when to use the tool: 'Use this to validate or generate text for different audiences (parents, students, teachers).' This provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives or exclusions, which would be a 5.

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