get_system_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation (get) but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if persona_id is invalid). This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it includes essential details about what the prompt contains. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary fillers.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and composition of the returned prompt. It could be improved by noting the format (e.g., plain text or JSON) but is sufficient for typical use. The sibling context reinforces its unique value as a combined retrieval.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'persona_id' (described as 'The persona ID'). The description of the tool does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The default value 'ambassador' is already noted in the schema. 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 states that the tool retrieves a complete system prompt for a persona, including both constitution and UVC qualities. This specific verb and resource, along with the mention of included components, distinguishes it from siblings like get_constitution and get_uvc_qualities.

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 implies that this tool should be used when a combined prompt covering both constitution and UVC qualities is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus calling the separate siblings, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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