sassy_persona_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the exact file path, that context is loaded at startup, that a missing file returns a creation template, and that the result is plain text and personal configuration rather than server state.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the key trait ('Read-only'), states the core purpose immediately, and layers supporting details (file location, fallback behavior, return format) in a logical order. Every sentence adds useful information without fluff.

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 simple no-parameter tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the source location, content scope, missing-file behavior, return type, personal-vs-server distinction, and the relevant sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters,' leaving no ambiguity about argument handling. With an empty schema, this explicit statement fully covers the parameter dimension.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('current user context loaded at startup from the persona file'), and enumerates the content fields (role, expertise, managed systems, active projects, communication preferences). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling sassy_persona_full by noting the difference in scope.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('Use when you need who-you-are-working-for context') and names the alternative for a broader need ('to get it bundled with all persona documents in one call, use sassy_persona_full instead'). This is direct guidance with no inference required.

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