Diretrizes de resposta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the actual contents of the response (guidelines, notification settings, knowledge document list) and imposes a sequencing obligation, which the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting behavior when no guidelines exist or any auth/scope requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the returned resources, with the imperative usage rule placed last for emphasis. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but every item maps to real return content, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming all three returned artifacts and the guideline subfields. It does not describe format or size of the knowledge document list, a minor gap for a zero-arg 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter schema applies. The description correctly implies a single, argument-free retrieval call.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Return") and enumerates the exact resources returned: team/personal reply guidelines, notification settings, and company knowledge documents. The parenthetical lists concrete guideline fields (tone, signature, length, always/never rules), so an agent knows precisely what payload to expect. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like aspa_update_settings or aspa_read_knowledge, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: "Call it before writing any draft." That is a clear when-to-use condition tied to the drafting workflow. There are no stated exclusions or named alternatives, but for a zero-parameter setup/read tool the positive guidance is sufficient.

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