get_coaching_persona

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('load... returns') but lacks explicit statement about being non-destructive or requiring authentication.

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 concise (6 lines), front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured with dedicated sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers core functionality and usage context. Could mention that it does not modify state.

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 single parameter 'coach_name' is described with examples ('e.g. "david", "coach"') which adds value beyond the schema's title. Could be improved with more allowed values or constraints.

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 uses specific verb+resource ('Load a coaching persona's full definition and guidelines') and clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get_coaching_personas' by indicating it returns full definition for one 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?

The description states when to use ('adopted fully for the duration of the session') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives beyond implying the plural variant.

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