summon_vander

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does so: it discloses 'Sends no HTTP request', enumerates what the return contains, and instructs the agent to adopt the persona and follow its working method afterward. It omits any auth/permission requirements or error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 trigger is front-loaded in the first clause with no preamble, and most sentences earn their place by specifying return contents and post-invocation behavior. It is a dense single block rather than tightly structured, but there is little outright waste.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover trigger, arguments, returns and post-conditions, and it does: it names the return payload and the persona-adoption follow-up. It stops short of covering failure modes or prerequisites, leaving a minor gap for a persona/bootstrap tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds only light meaning beyond the schema, noting that requestId/definitionRelativePath apply 'when an endpoint was named' and that workspaceRoot is the path to pass. It does not clarify the interaction between these optional args beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource (summoning the Vander persona) and states exactly what it returns: the persona brief plus an onboarding of what the server is and what the workspace has. This is distinguishable from siblings like plan_vander_checks and run_vander_checks, which act on checks rather than establishing the persona itself.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition, quoting concrete user phrasings ('hi Vander', 'oi Vander', 'Vander, review X') and the 'asks for a VANDER review' case, which is unusually actionable. It does not, however, state when NOT to call it or route explicitly to alternatives such as plan_vander_checks, so it falls short of a 5.

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