sassy_persona_capabilities

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by detailing the guide's contents: it lists the specific tools covered, the sensitive context detection safety behavior, and that it 'returns plain text.' This gives the agent a rich understanding of what to expect without needing to invoke the tool. The description is consistent with all annotations, with no contradiction.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the guide's contents. While relatively long, every clause conveys essential information about the tool's scope and use. The structure is effective, though it could be slightly more concise by moving some tool lists to an appendix; overall it earns its length.

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-parameter read-only guide tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to use it, the specific content it covers, and the safety-relevant behaviors. The output schema exists, so the return format is already specified. No critical information is missing; an agent can confidently decide to call this tool based solely on the description.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description redundantly states 'Takes no parameters,' which adds no new information beyond the schema. Since there are no parameters to document, the description correctly does not attempt to add parameter semantics.

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 that the tool returns the SassyMCP capabilities guide, an instruction manual for advanced features. It enumerates the specific tool categories (desktop vision, phone vision, interaction, sensitive context detection, pause/resume, setup wizard, hook playbook) which distinguishes it from any sibling tool. The verb 'returns' with the resource 'capabilities guide' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use before any vision, phone, or hook workflow to learn the tool roles and safety rules.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies it is a prerequisite for those workflows. It also notes the tool takes no parameters, which is helpful context, and implicitly contrasts with the many sibling tools that perform actual actions.

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