cpu_persona

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool takes no input, is meant to be read once, and describes the kind of content it returns. It could be more explicit about the return format, but for a simple briefing tool the behavioral context is reasonably complete.

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 entire description is a single, tightly packed sentence. It front-loads the purpose, lists the key content areas, and includes usage instructions without any filler.

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-input, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it says what the tool is, what content it provides, when to read it, and how often. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully defines the input surface. The description reinforces this by saying 'No input,' which is sufficient. This meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool as an operating brief for communicating with the operator, and enumerates exactly what it contains: voice, language rule, message shape, panel bar, and panel templates. It also explicitly says it requires no input, which distinguishes it from the many action-oriented sibling 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 explicit instructions: read it once and do so before the agent's first reply to the operator. This is strong timing guidance and effectively tells the agent when this tool should be invoked relative to all other operations.

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