sassy_persona_decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'returns plain text' and 'Takes no parameters,' but most of the content describes the framework's substance rather than revealing additional side effects or constraints.

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?

Dense but efficiently structured: front-loaded read-only status, then semicolon-separated categories, then usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value without repetition or 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?

Given zero parameters, comprehensive safety annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all needed invocation details: no arguments, plain-text output, purpose, and relationship to a sibling tool. Nothing essential 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, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no parameters,' eliminating any ambiguity even before consulting the schema.

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?

States a specific resource ('decision framework') and clearly enumerates its content categories: execute immediately, state approach then execute, require explicit confirmation, and hard stop. The focus on caution calibration distinguishes it from siblings like sassy_persona_full.

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?

Explicitly instructs agents to use it to calibrate caution on risky operations and to pair with sassy_persona_full for the complete bundle. It does not list explicit exclusions, but the intended context is clear and actionable.

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