create_generation_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral note that it does not generate factual claims or artwork, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format or any other side effects beyond that.

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, no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying negative statement follows. Every word contributes 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?

With a single parameter that is completely undocumented and no usage guidance against sibling tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It also omits what the resulting brief looks like. The annotations cover safety but not parameter semantics or selection logic.

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 never mentions the 'request' parameter. The agent gets no guidance on what content the request should contain, its format, or constraints beyond the schema's string type and length limits.

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 action (prepare a brief) and the resource (CP one-pager brief). The negative clause 'Does not generate factual claims or artwork' helps differentiate from content-generating tools, though it does not name specific 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The negative statement implies this tool is not for factual claims or artwork, but it does not mention alternatives or conditions for selection. The agent is left to infer from sibling names.

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