rtcf

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone carries the burden. It describes a straightforward composition operation without side effects, but does not disclose details like validation behavior or output format. A score of 3 is appropriate as it is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second provides a usage cue. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity and full schema parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit output format details (no output schema), but the name 'build_prompt' strongly implies a string return. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description groups them as 'explicit Role, Task, Context, and Format parts' but adds no additional meaning or usage context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb ('Compose') and resource ('ready-to-use prompt') with specific components (Role, Task, Context, Format). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'improve_prompt' by implying this is for building from scratch rather than improving an existing prompt.

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 specifies when to use this tool: 'when the user already knows the pieces and wants them woven into one clean prompt.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the sibling tool as an alternative.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the transformation: rewrites a rough prompt, returns improved version plus four parts. No side effects or destructive actions are implied; the behavior is straightforward. Additional detail about potential limitations could improve transparency, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and output, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the structure of the output, and when to use it. There are no significant gaps in context.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'prompt', with a clear description: 'The rough prompt or request to restructure'. The tool description adds little beyond that (just says 'rough prompt'), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb 'Rewrite' and resource 'rough prompt into a sharper, ready-to-use prompt', and explicitly states the output structure (RTCF) and return value. It distinguishes from sibling by indicating when to use ('vague request' or 'user asks to improve a prompt').

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 clearly states when to use the tool: 'when the user's request is vague, or when the user asks to improve a prompt'. It also advises using it 'before answering'. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention the sibling tool by name, but the context is sufficient.

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