get_brand_voice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and describes what the tool returns (the brand voice prompt with its components). However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is cached/live. The description adds some context about what the prompt contains but misses operational details.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: stating the action, explaining the tool's importance as the 'master prompt', and detailing what the prompt captures. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvement could come from slightly tighter phrasing, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool retrieves and its significance in the localization system. With an output schema handling return value documentation, the description focuses appropriately on purpose and context rather than output details. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on what the tool returns. This is efficient and avoids unnecessary information.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get the brand voice prompt') and identifies the resource ('core localization personality', 'master prompt'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it retrieves the foundational localization personality rather than performing translations, managing languages, or accessing style guides.

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 usage context by stating this is 'the master prompt that shapes all translations', suggesting it should be used to understand localization guidelines before performing translation tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_style_guides or translate, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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