build_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose output shape (a prompt plus an ordered file list with the anchor first) and the 'verbatim' instruction, implying pure composition with no mutation. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., that a project bible or anchor must exist) or failure modes, leaving real gaps.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the ordering constraint stated compactly. It wastes no words, though the terseness contributes to the semantic gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

For an 8-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 50% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It never defines 'bible', never maps inputs to outputs, and gives no guidance on how task/items/cols/rows interact, so an agent cannot reliably call it without resorting to the schema alone.

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 only 50% across 8 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It loosely gestures at 'anchor' (use_anchor) and 'this request' but never explains the task enum, items, cols/rows, action, or notes semantics. The enum values and item-per-cell convention exist only in 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?

States a concrete verb and resource: compose the ChatGPT prompt from the bible plus this request, plus a secondary output of listing files to attach. It is distinguishable from image-processing siblings like slice_grid or build_spritesheet. However, jargon ('the bible', 'anchor', 'the request') is left undefined, which slightly clouds the purpose for an agent without prior context.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the 11 siblings. An agent must infer that this is the prompt-authoring step, but nothing states its place in a workflow relative to process, ingest, or set_anchor.

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