sassy_persona_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Get the guide') and discloses what the guide contains. It doesn't describe output format or potential side effects, but for a simple informational tool, the description is honest and sufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists contents, and the third reinforces the nature. Each sentence adds value without unnecessary redundancy. Well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does and what it returns. No further context is required.

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 per guidelines. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by describing the tool as a direct retrieval of a guide. No parameter explanation required beyond what the schema already shows.

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's purpose: 'Get the SassyMCP capabilities guide.' It identifies the specific resource (capabilities guide) and distinguishes it from sibling persona tools (style, decisions, practices) by focusing on the instruction manual for advanced features.

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 implies usage context by stating 'This is the instruction manual for SassyMCP's advanced features' and listing the covered topics (dynamic vision, phone interaction, etc.). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unique enough among siblings. Clear context without explicit when-not-to-use.

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