reflect_get_persona

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

No annotations are provided, but the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. The description discloses what the tool returns (lens, catches/undervalues, voice) and the intended workflow. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but these are not critical for a getter 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 purpose and includes the use case and a follow-up instruction. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to proceed after use. The sibling context suggests differentiation is clear.

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 provides a clear description of the single parameter 'id' as an enum of four values. The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Reflect reviewer archetype') and clearly states what it returns: full lens, what they catch/undervalue, and voice. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the follow-up step using reflect_get_voice_rules.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to review a screen as a specific persona. It also directs the user to apply voice rules afterward. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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