sassy_persona_style

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only 'get' operation but does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it describe the nature of the returned directives or how they should be applied. Minimal disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core function and the categories of the output.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to elaborate on return values. However, it does not fully explain the practical purpose or how the operating parameters should influence the agent's behavior, leaving some ambiguity. It is adequate but not richly informative.

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, which warrants a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax since there are none, and it adds context about what the returned information covers.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'expert-mode operating parameters' and enumerates the types of parameters (execution priority, communication style, autonomy level, precision standards). This goes beyond a tautology and gives a concrete sense of the resource, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling persona 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sassy_persona_full or sassy_persona_capabilities. The description only defines what it does, not the context for choosing it.

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