analyze_promptAnalyzes prompt characteristics to flag migration risks without inference, enabling reviewable LLM migration plans.
Conservatively analyze prompt characteristics without inference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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. It conveys a conservative, no-inference approach, but says nothing about side effects, return behavior, limitations, or permissions. This is only a thin behavioral hint.
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 sentence with no redundancy, and the core idea is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, so it earns only a midscore.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required. Still, the description gives an agent no way to choose this tool among many prompt-related siblings given the large sibling list, and the absence of annotations compounds the issue.
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% and the description adds no parameter-level detail. An agent only sees a string named 'prompt' with no explanation of expected format, content, 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?
Describes a specific action (analyze) on a specific resource (prompt characteristics), and adds a distinctive qualifier ('conservatively', 'without inference'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_prompt or analyze_invocation, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state what scenarios warrant conservative analysis, nor does it name any sibling tools to prefer for validation, comparison, or inference-based tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.