voice_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool measures rules from past writing (sentence rhythm, casing, punctuation rates, vocabulary, words to avoid), that they override defaults, and that the tool is 'cheap and fast.' It does not explicitly state side-effect-free or mention error/insufficient-data behavior, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 compact yet information-dense. Each sentence serves a purpose: defining the output, providing an imperative usage cue, explaining the source and authority of the output, and emphasizing cost/benefit. There is no wasted wording or repetition beyond the intended emphasis.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, why it matters, what data informs it, and what the behavioral characteristics are. The sibling context further clarifies its niche without needing extra explanation.

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 zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (empty object). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the user's measured writing voice as explicit rules.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on retrieval of explicit rules rather than scoring, verification, status, learning, noting, or export. The scope is well-defined.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to call: 'CALL THIS BEFORE writing any prose the user will send or publish under their own name' with concrete examples (post, email, reply, bio, etc.). It also explains why it should be used ('they override your defaults') and gives negative guidance ('call it rather than guessing'). It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, so it falls slightly 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.