List my personas

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

It reveals non-obvious behavior beyond the read-only annotations: personas are publicly unlinked from the account, each has its own /u/ page showing only its own games and comments, and votes belong to the account rather than the persona. This is substantial contextual value that annotations do not provide.

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?

Three sentences cover the concept, public-page behavior, downstream usage, default behavior, and vote semantics with no filler. It is slightly concept-heavy rather than verb-led, but 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list, the description covers what personas are, how to consume them, and important account-level semantics. It does not spell out the response shape or whether a default persona is included, but the tool's complexity is low and annotations already cover the safety profile.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds relevant context about the `persona` argument on sibling tools, though it documents no parameters for this tool itself.

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 title and description clearly identify the resource as 'your personas,' and the phrase 'Pass any of these to the persona argument' implies the tool returns the set of personas. However, the description never states an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns,' and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling persona tools.

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 gives concrete downstream context: returned personas can be passed to the `persona` argument on create_game, update_game, post_comment, or report_bug, and omitting it publishes as the default. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like whoami or set_default_persona, but the usage context is clear.

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