personality

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

The description discloses the dual nature of the tool (read/write), the trait names and ranges, and the effect of 'recompute'. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, which aligns with set being idempotent. No contradiction, and adds value beyond annotations.

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 structured with clear sections and bullet points for actions, traits, and args. It is somewhat long but well-organized. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated trait names).

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. It sufficiently covers all input aspects, including the recompute flag. For a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description entirely compensates by listing all parameters, their types, defaults, and constraints (e.g., trait names, score range). Could mention default for action is 'get' but it's implied. Adequate for agent understanding.

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: 'AI personality traits derived from memory patterns.' It defines two distinct actions (get and set) with specific effects, and the tool name 'personality' aligns with the description. Different from sibling tools like 'memory' or 'recall'.

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 explicitly explains when to use 'get' vs 'set' and mentions optional parameters like 'recompute'. However, it does not provide guidance on when NOT to use this tool or compare directly with sibling tools for decision-making.

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