pws_get_personas

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds contextual behavior by listing the returned fields (gimmick, mask, picture, etc.) and explaining the effect of contractId, going beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, including the beta flag and the conditional contractId behavior, with no padding 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?

The tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the main returned data and the contractId condition, but doesn't cover parameter behaviors (limit, search, workerId filtering) or the output structure beyond the listed fields. Given the complexity, there are notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly explains the contractId behavior ('also returns the active contracted identity') but remains silent on limit, search, and workerId semantics, though these are partially self-explanatory. The description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Browse' with a clear resource 'worker's native PWS alter egos/personas' and enumerates included attributes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the 'native' scope and the conditional 'active contracted identity' with contractId, making the tool's 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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit; the description states what the tool does but doesn't provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative sibling tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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