Get a random Sun Tzu quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: randomness ('at random'). It also mentions that the verse comes from 'the annotated set,' implying a curated collection. While it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, the verb 'returns' and the nature of the tool make this obvious. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that immediately state what the tool does and when to use it. There is no wasted text, and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the random selection and optional theme filter, and points to list_themes for theme enumeration. It does not describe the return format, but for a quote tool this is acceptable and not a significant gap.

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 says 'optionally restricted to a theme,' which essentially restates the schema property. It adds no new semantics about the parameter, such as behavior when omitted or the meaning of specific theme values. The schema itself already provides the enum and a description, so the description contributes little beyond redundancy.

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 function: 'Returns one verse at random from the annotated set, optionally restricted to a theme.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'For when you want a line rather than an answer to a specific situation' distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_quote, which target specific queries.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'For when you want a line rather than an answer to a specific situation.' This implies that find_quote is the alternative for specific questions, though it does not name it directly. It also mentions optional theme restriction and refers to list_themes, giving context on how to use the theme parameter.

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