Activate the clinical auditor persona

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which only indicates no mutation. It explains what the tool returns (the prompt text with date filled in), clarifies what it is not (not a claim of medical authority, not an override of judgement), and sets expectations that the output is a guide, not a directive. It also discloses the underlying client limitation that justifies the tool's existence. This is excellent behavioral transparency, adding significant context beyond the annotation.

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 and front-loaded with critical usage conditions, but it is somewhat verbose, with repeated emphasis on not calling speculatively and over-explaining the rationale. It could be tightened to improve clarity without losing necessary context. While every sentence adds value (no filler), the length makes it less concise than ideal, earning a 3.

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 complexity (a persona activation with security-sensitive conditions) and the lack of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers all required aspects: when to use, what it returns, what it does not do, and the reasoning behind the tool. No additional information is needed for an agent to call it 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?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty but covered at 100% because there is nothing to describe. The description adds meaning by explaining that the tool takes no input and that the output is a prompt with today's date filled in, which is implicit context. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is high, but the description could have detailed the output format slightly more (e.g., exact structure), so a 4 is appropriate.

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's purpose: to activate a specific persona mode by returning the clinical_auditor MCP prompt text. It specifies the exact trigger condition (explicit patient request), distinguishes it from speculative use, and differentiates it from sibling tools that retrieve data (e.g., get_glucose) by focusing on a prompt, not data. The verb 'activate' plus the resource 'clinical_auditor persona' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use rules: only after the patient explicitly requests the persona in their own words, with clear examples ('be tougher with me', 'give it to me straight', 'do a full audit'). It also states when not to use it (speculatively, based on non-patient sources) and explains the tool's purpose relative to Claude Desktop's limitation, which helps the agent understand the appropriate context. This is a model example of usage guidance with exclusions and alternatives.

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