Get Research Prompts

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the important behavioral constraints: each prompt pair is for a separate scope, must run under separate agents, and must be validated before registry build. It does not explicitly state whether the call itself has side effects, but 'Ready-to-run prompts' implies retrieval, and the output schema covers return structure.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and then provide the necessary workflow constraints. Every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers purpose, scoping, agent constraints, artifact handling, validation, and the next registry step, which is substantial for a single-parameter tool. It leaves 'remaining scope' and 'stated paths' slightly underspecified, but the output schema likely supplies those details.

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?

There is one parameter, run_dir, with 0% schema description coverage. The description says the prompts are 'for a run's research request,' which implies run_dir identifies the run, but it never explicitly defines run_dir as the path or identifier, leaving the agent to infer it.

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 names a concrete deliverable ('researcher and reviewer prompts for a run's research request') and bounds it with 'one bounded prompt pair per remaining scope,' making the tool's function clear. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling research/validation tools by naming the follow-up tools (validate_research_artifact, build_session_registry) rather than confusing it with generation or analysis tools.

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?

It provides explicit operational context: run each prompt pair in a separate agent, never have an agent review its own research, write YAML artifacts, validate, then call build_session_registry. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the research-request context and workflow are clear.

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