Generate Optimized Writing Prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates reading inputs and creating a prompt, but does not mention whether the tool has side effects on project state, requires an initialized project, or persists the generated prompt. This leaves important behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, compact sentence with a clear input-to-output flow, front-loading the key purpose. It is concise and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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 tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., raw text prompt) or explain how the `strategy` parameter (continue/rewrite/expand) changes the generated prompt. While the core purpose is clear, these gaps reduce completeness for an agent deciding how to handle the tool's output.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions, including the strategy enum, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads previous chapter, outline, lore, style guide, and Chekhov Guns, and creates a polished System Prompt for the next writing turn. This distinctive purpose separates it from sibling tools that manage project structure, export, or analysis.

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 use before a writing turn ("cho lượt viết tiếp theo") but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like story_analyze_pacing or story_query_context. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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