sassy_persona_observability

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the output format ('returns plain text'), the fact that it takes no parameters, and prescriptive behavior: the recommended first-call sequence. It also adds details like sanitized args and elapsed ms in audit trail entries. The annotations already cover read-only and idempotence, and the description reinforces this without contradicting it.

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 long but information-dense, and the key facts are front-loaded: 'Read-only. Returns the cross-system observability guide.' Every sentence adds value, though the long list of internal capabilities could arguably be trimmed without losing essential guidance.

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 role as an observability guide, the description fully covers what it returns, its output format, its no-parameter contract, and when to use it. The output schema exists, so return details are already structured. The recommended first-call sequence adds practical operational context beyond the basics.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters,' which is consistent with the empty input schema. No further parameter explanation is needed.

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 action and resource: 'Returns the cross-system observability guide' and enumerates the exact contents, such as sassy_get_config, tool analytics, audit trail, and the capability map. This makes it clearly distinct from the many sibling observability tools, which return actual metrics rather than a guide to those tools.

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 states when to use: 'Use when starting a session or debugging what the server can do.' It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or contrast directly with observability siblings, but the use context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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