Enhance a prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds the context that the tool is 'Free', which is useful but not deeply revealing. It does not describe what happens during enhancement, whether it requires specific inputs, or what the output format is. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some but limited behavioral context.

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 very concise, consisting of one sentence plus the word 'Free'. It front-loads the core purpose and has no redundant phrases. It could be slightly more informative, but for its length, it is efficient and wastes no 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 is relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain the return value, the role of 'cloud_provider', or how it differs from similar tools like 'clarify_prompt'. Given the availability of sibling tools and the lack of an output schema, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding when and how to use the tool.

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 schema description coverage is 50%, with the 'prompt' parameter described and 'cloud_provider' undocumented. The description itself does not mention either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. It implies 'prompt' is the rough idea, but it provides no meaning for 'cloud_provider' or the relationship 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 function: transforming a rough idea into a detailed generation prompt. The verb 'Turn' and the resource 'rough idea' make the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'clarify_prompt', which might serve a similar function, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another sibling like 'clarify_prompt' would be more appropriate. The only usage hint is implicit in the purpose, but no explicit direction is given.

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