Get Tailoring Options

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond that: fields may be empty, the presets are user-owned and immutable via tools, and the server enforces specific rules (unproven skills only in a skills list, resume lines in first person, saved keywords land). The rule list is partially about tailoring generally rather than this read call, so it's helpful context rather than precise return semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned and in what shape, which is the highest-value information. The trailing sentences about server rules and gap-walking drift into workflow guidance that is only loosely tied to a read-only getter, adding length without tightening the tool's own contract.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the three returned fields and their sub-shape, noting emptiness is possible, and clarifying that the agent may explain or work around the presets. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing to document. The description productively spends its space describing the returned structure (presets array with key/on/means, instruction, persona) instead of parameters, which is the useful detail here given there is no output 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 verb+resource: it returns the user's Quick tailor presets as structured data (switches, on/off, plain meaning), plus the per-tailor instruction and persona text. It distinguishes itself from set_persona and the create/resolve siblings by noting the presets are user-set in the app and no tool mutates them. Slightly muddied by extending 'options' to include persona/instruction, which overlaps conceptually with set_persona.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: use create_tailoring_session with use_presets to follow these presets, or run a custom tailor that walks gaps and saves via resolve_gaps. It explains the downstream consumption rather than an explicit 'call this first when…' rule, but the alternatives and their conditions are named.

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