enhance_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds context by stating the tool uses the host model and returns guidance, not invoking external services. This clarifies the behavior beyond the annotation, though it omits details like whether the input prompt is modified or used for training.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content. 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 simple tool with 2 parameters, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the function and behavior. It explains the tool does not call another AI service, which is important context. However, it does not describe the return format or how the guidance is presented, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'short visual idea' (maps to prompt) and 'visual direction' (maps to style), but these are paraphrases of the schema descriptions without adding new meaning or format details. No additional value over 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Turn a short visual idea into a stronger generation prompt.' It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like generate_image/generate_video by noting it 'returns concise guidance rather than calling another AI service.' This provides a specific verb and resource, fully differentiating from alternatives.

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 use cases (when you have a short visual idea and want a better prompt) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like search_gallery or generate_image are not contrasted, leaving the agent to infer context without clear guidance.

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