reflect_get_voice_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a set of rules and samples, which is a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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 sentence that front-loads the key components. It is concise but could be slightly more structured, e.g., listing the components in a clearer format. However, it achieves brevity without sacrificing essential 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned artifacts (voice contract, moods, checks, reply rules, samples). It fits well among sibling Reflect tools and provides enough context for an agent to understand what it supplies.

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 is 4 according to guidelines. The description adds full meaning by detailing what the tool returns, compensating for the lack of an output schema. No parameter details are needed, and the description covers the tool's value comprehensively.

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 tool provides the 'shared Reflect voice contract' with specific components (sounds-human vs sounds-like-AI, moods, checks, reply guidance, samples). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'Reflect voice contract', but does not explicitly differentiate from 'marketing_get_voice', a sibling tool. The verb 'get' in the name reinforces retrieval.

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 instructs users to 'Apply to every archetype so the review sounds like a real person, not a UX bot.' This implies the tool should be used for review writing, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives among siblings. Usage context is implied but not fully specified.

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