enhance_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that the tool returns a rewrite brief and that the agent must perform the actual rewriting. It details the content of the brief. It does not mention any destructive behavior or side effects, which are not applicable here.

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 efficiently structured with a front-loaded action statement followed by key details about the output and agent's role. It is not overly long, though the second paragraph could be slightly more concise.

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 simplicity (2 params) and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the output format (rewrite brief with elements like missing, rules, template, fixes, length target) and the agent's responsibility, leaving no significant gaps.

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 adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'target model' and 'prompt to enhance', but the schema already provides descriptions for both parameters. No additional semantics.

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: to rewrite a prompt for higher scoring on a target model. It uses specific verbs ('rewrite', 'enhance') and resources ('prompt', 'target model'), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'score_prompt' which only scores.

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 provides clear guidance on how to use the tool's output: the agent receives a rewrite brief and must write the enhanced prompt themselves. It explains the division of labor between Dali and the LLM. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'score_and_enhance'.

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