PRISM synthesis contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behaviors. The description adds 'Deterministic; generates no prose,' which discloses output behavior and reinforces the lack of side effects, providing value beyond the structured annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous content.

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?

For a tool with an output schema and two optional parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and deterministic nature. However, the lack of parameter explanations prevents a perfect score, as the agent may be unsure how to populate 'preflight' or 'measurement'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'preflight' and 'measurement' parameters. It does not explain their meaning or usage at all, leaving a significant gap. The description only covers the tool's output, not its inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource (rules for the final answer), enumerating concrete content: conflicts to disclose, distinct claims to preserve, and prohibited shortcuts. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing determinism and no prose, making its role unique.

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 states the clear context: it provides rules the host must follow when writing the final answer. This gives a clear usage scenario, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced, but the context is sufficient for typical selection.

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