Show a recruit's system prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses helpful traits: output is never truncated, it includes the full revision history context, and `revision` reads a superseded version. It stops short of explicitly stating there are no side effects or describing error/access behavior, but 'Print' and 'read' strongly imply a read-only operation.

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 tightly written sentences. The main purpose and the never-truncated guarantee are front-loaded, and the revision usage is stated in a single conditional sentence with no filler or repetition.

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 description is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema. It tells the agent what will be printed and how to select a past revision. Minor omissions like implicit current-version default and return format details are already covered by the schema ('omit for the current one') and the field list in the description.

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 The description adds meaning by linking `revision` to 'superseded version' and by enumerating what the output contains (model, fallback, tags, params, current revision, past revisions), which helps the agent understand the parameter's role beyond the schema.

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 ('Print') and resource ('a recruit's full system prompt'), and adds distinguishing scope: never truncated, includes model/fallback/tags/params/revisions. It also explains the optional revision behavior, which clearly differentiates this read/display tool from mutation siblings like update_persona and rollback_persona.

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 clearly communicates the core usage context: show the current system prompt, or pass `revision` to read a superseded version. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool versus update/rollback siblings, but the read/print framing makes the intended use obvious.

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