Transform a free-text role description into a three-part onboarding prompt (responsibilities, boundaries, tool surface) and prepare it for workflow node configuration.
上岗 prompt 生成器——岗位描述 → 三段结构（职责/边界/工具面），产物经 workflow_node_add 落进节点配置（与 workflow CRUD 闭环）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | 工具角色面（可选——缺省 ops，决定工具面清单口径） | |
| agent_name | No | Agent 名（可选——缺省从岗位描述推导） | |
| role_description | Yes | 岗位描述（自由文本，如「负责每日数据报表生成与异常告警」） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the output is a three-part structured prompt and that it feeds into workflow_node_add, but it does not disclose whether the tool mutates state, requires specific roles or permissions, or has side effects beyond generating text. It doesn't state that it might create a node automatically or just returns text. This lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise: one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and a hint of the output structure. It avoids redundancy and includes a valuable integration detail (workflow_node_add). Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required, simple schema), the description is mostly sufficient for calling it. However, it lacks behavioral transparency (output format details, whether it modifies workflow state) and does not explain the exact integration with workflow_node_add (e.g., does it return a node object that is then passed?). Since no output schema exists, the description should clarify what the returned data looks like.
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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context about the output structure (three parts) and the role field's effect on tool surface, which slightly enhances understanding, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema is sufficient.
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 purpose: it's a prompt generator that converts a job description into a three-part structure (responsibilities/boundaries/tool surface). It names the resource (job description input) and the verb (generate), and the domain is clear from the title. It also distinguishes it from siblings by referencing the workflow integration, though not explicitly naming 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 usage: given a role description, generate a prompt and then integrate via workflow_node_add. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of siblings (workflow CRUD tools) makes it clear this is for prompt generation, not for direct workflow editing. The lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.