sassy_persona_style

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description agrees ('Read-only'), so there is no contradiction. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return format ('plain text document') and the specific categories of content the agent will receive, which helps set expectations about the response.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: content enumeration with clarifying parentheticals, return format confirmation, and usage guidance with the sibling pointer. The description is information-dense without fluff and front-loads the key facts (read-only, returns parameters) before routing to the alternative.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, in what format, and when to choose this tool over the full-bundle sibling. No critical gap remains given the simplicity of the tool.

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 100% schema coverage, so the schema has nothing left to document. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description confirms 'Takes no parameters', which reinforces the schema rather than merely repeating it.

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 and resource ('Returns the expert-mode operating parameters injected into the AI session') and enumerates the exact content domains (execution priority, communication style, autonomy level, precision standards). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool sassy_persona_full by noting it returns only the style subset, so an agent can distinguish them without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you want the session's behavior directives alone', and names the exact alternative (sassy_persona_full) plus what it adds (decisions, practices, observability, capabilities, user context). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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