get_master_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the input constraint (project size <2000 lines) and automatic handling, but does not detail side effects (though 'get' implies read-only), return format, or edge cases. Additional context like no parameters required is left to schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource. No unnecessary words. Efficient and to the point.

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 a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and a key constraint. It does not specify return type or behavior if project exceeds limit, but is reasonably complete for its 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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none. Schema coverage is 100% trivially, but description adds no parameter info—which is fine.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'master prompt', and specifies the context 'single-pass rewrites of small projects (<2000 lines)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a different resource (master prompt vs entrypoint/step/list/validate).

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?

The description implies when to use (when needing master prompt for small project rewrites) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among sibling tools. No exclusion criteria or usage guidance beyond the purpose.

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