dossier

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

Annotations only cover read-only and closed-world behavior; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: that the content is written in the third person for non-Art agents, that it encodes a push-back mandate, and that workers are expected to refuse bad work even from Art or Jonathan. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, though nothing about cost, size, or precedence rules is given.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and there is no filler, but the middle clause ('Returns Art's standards, taste, operating constraints, and how Art wants work done') partially restates the opening phrase rather than adding information.

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 read-only loader with no output schema, four fully documented optional params, and no annotation surprises, the description covers what the tool is and what it returns well enough to call it correctly. It does not say what happens with no arguments, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (role, model, client, project) are already documented with examples and env-var override behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Load) plus a precisely named resource (Art's operating brief/dossier for a worker body), and it enumerates the returned content — standards, taste, constraints, working expectations. The resource is unmistakably distinct from every sibling (memory/knowledge/person tools), so an agent can identify it without opening a schema.

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?

It implies the audience — agents that are NOT Art but execute tasks on Art's behalf — which is a useful targeting cue, but it never states when to call it (e.g. at session start, when adopting a role) or what alternatives exist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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