Mirdan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by describing what it adds ('quality requirements, codebase context, and tool recommendations') and mentions auto-detection and context levels. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement. The Args and Returns sections are structured efficiently, with each sentence adding value without redundancy. It avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns in detail, but more behavioral context could be added for a tool with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose: 'prompt' as the original input, 'task_type' with enum values and override function, and 'context_level' with options. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on enum semantics.

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 with specific verbs ('enhance a coding prompt') and resources ('quality requirements, codebase context, and tool recommendations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_intent' or 'get_quality_standards' by focusing on prompt enhancement rather than analysis or standards retrieval.

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 through the mention of 'auto-detection' and parameter defaults, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest_tools' or 'validate_code_quality'. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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