mdma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Generates a custom MDMA prompt' and 'Returns only the custom prompt part', which covers basic output behavior. However, it doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the core functionality.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does, the second explains output usage. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. While efficient, it could be slightly more structured by separating behavioral details from integration instructions.

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 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the basic purpose and output format, but doesn't address the complexity of generating MDMA prompts from multiple structured inputs. For a tool with no output schema, it should ideally describe the return format more thoroughly beyond 'only the custom prompt part'.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the parameters generically ('structured input (domain, components, fields, steps)') but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained relationships between parameters.

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: 'Generates a custom MDMA prompt from structured input' with specific components listed (domain, components, fields, steps). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on building system prompts rather than retrieving or validating them. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools like 'get-prompt' or 'validate-prompt'.

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 context through the example of building MDMA prompts and mentions how to integrate the output ('use buildSystemPrompt({ customPrompt }) in code'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get-prompt' or 'validate-prompt', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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