get_functional_scan_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and clearly discloses read-only semantics, no side effects, and that it does not write tests or assertions. It also enumerates the `objectives_without_tests` and `missing_objectives` report fields, providing strong behavioral expectations.

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?

Purpose, safety, output fields, and workflow are each covered in a compact three-paragraph format. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence adds relevant guidance.

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?

The description is rich in behavioral and workflow context, especially given the output schema, but it fails to explain the semantics of the required `server_version` parameter, which is a notable completeness gap. Otherwise the tool is well covered for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema documents `model_id` but leaves `server_version` completely undescribed, giving only 50% schema coverage. The description mentions 'Generation' as a determinant of functional tests but does not explicitly connect it to `server_version` or explain how the agent should choose a value. This is a significant gap for a required parameter.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('agent brief for implementing functional-conformance tests'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `get_functional_coverage` and `submit_functional_tests` by stating it returns implementation briefs and objectives, not test results or submission endpoints.

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 explicitly states the intended workflow: use this to drive test implementation, then complete instructions by writing the test and calling `submit_functional_tests` with TEST_EXISTS + TEST_PASSES; afterwards read `get_functional_coverage` for pass/fail state. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative-tool guidance.

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