quick-enhance

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

Describes optimizations like clarity improvements and structure enhancement, but no details on exactly what changes are made or any side effects. With no annotations, the burden is higher, and the description is only moderately transparent.

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?

Well-structured with a clear opener and bullet points. Concise but could be slightly tighter; every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequately covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior for a simple tool. Missing details on return format or error handling, but sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions for 'request' and 'tone'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it enhances a user request with basic optimizations. The name 'quick-enhance' and description specify it as a lightweight version compared to 'betterprompt', distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: quick improvements, simple requests, faster results. Implies it's an alternative to 'betterprompt' but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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