sassy_persona_decisions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description discloses what the tool returns (the decision framework). It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but for a simple informational getter this is adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action 'Get the decision framework', and then expands with the specific decision categories. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool does and what content it returns. It could optionally mention how this fits into the broader persona toolset, but that is not necessary for a simple informational getter.

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 description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain; the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose without needing to touch on inputs.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'decision framework' and immediately explains what it contains: when to execute immediately vs state approach vs confirm vs hard-stop. This distinguishes it from sibling persona tools like sassy_persona_style and sassy_persona_practices, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs to know the decision rules for whether to execute, state approach, confirm, or hard-stop. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select this tool over its siblings.

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