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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says it 'generates' a prompt, implying a read-only transformation, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs any side effects, requires specific inputs beyond the recommendation, or how it handles invalid or incomplete recommendations. It also doesn't mention output format or whether the prompt is truly 'copy-ready' in all cases. With zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler. However, it could have used the available space to add parameter semantics or usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent would not know what 'output', 'target', and 'systems' mean, what the generated prompt looks like, or what constraints exist on the recommendation input. The description is adequate for understanding the tool's high-level purpose but insufficient for correct invocation in many cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters. The description only mentions 'recommendation' implicitly by referencing KEEP/SWAP/BUILD recommendations, but it does not explain the meaning of 'output', 'target', or 'systems'. The agent cannot infer what values these parameters should take or how they relate to the generated prompt. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('a copy-ready one-shot build or migration prompt') and names the source ('StackSwap KEEP, SWAP, or BUILD recommendation'). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like generate_data_layer_blueprint or suggest_swaps. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 implies the tool is used when a KEEP, SWAP, or BUILD recommendation exists and a build/migration prompt is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_data_layer_blueprint or suggest_swaps, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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