Summon a canonical Vader quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool returns a real Vader line and that the topic parameter is optional and constrained to a listed set. It does not mention edge behavior for invalid topics, but that is a minor gap for such a simple read-only tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then provides the parameter constraints. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or tangential information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the return type, the input options, and the optional nature of the parameter. Missing sibling differentiation and invalid-input behavior are minor for this low-complexity tool.

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 schema already documents the topic parameter, and the description adds meaningful value by enumerating the exact allowed values ('father, faith, power, destiny, failure, deal, teacher, circle, impressive, escape, join, breathing') and clarifying that the parameter is optional. This goes beyond the schema's generic example.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('a real Darth Vader line'), and the title adds 'canonical' to reinforce scope. It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling vader_speak.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings sense_disturbance or vader_speak. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual conditions, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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