ground_prompt

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

Discloses key behaviors: sources are pinned at highest priority, tracked individually in trace, capped at 4000 chars, requires at least one non-empty source, and error behavior. While no annotations exist, it covers most relevant aspects for decision-making.

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?

Every sentence is purposeful: states purpose, priority, usage guidance, constraints, and error behavior. No redundant or filler content. Well-structured.

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 complex tool with 15 params and no output schema or annotations, the description covers core functionality, usage scenario, and important constraints. Some optional params are left to schema descriptions, but the essential context for selection and invocation is present.

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?

The description adds some context beyond the schema (e.g., priority over project rules, error behavior), but schema coverage is only 13%, and many optional parameters remain unexplained. The description compensates partially for the required params but not fully for all 15.

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 optimizes a prompt against explicit grounding sources, distinguishes it from optimize_prompt by mentioning error behavior and priority, and provides specific examples of sources (spec, transcript, RFC, etc.).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when you want the rewrite to cite specific material') and when not to ('will error rather than silently fall through to optimize_prompt'), providing clear alternatives.

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