execute_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions execution with variables and references but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key inputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely executes dynamic content (implying potential side effects or errors), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'register_prompt_template'). This leaves the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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 three parameters (project_path, prompt_id, variables). The description adds minimal value by implying these are used to 'fill in the template', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Execute') and the resource ('a prompt template'), specifying it uses 'provided variables and resource references'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'register_prompt_template' (which likely creates templates) and 'generate_scenario' (which might create content from scratch). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a registered template first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'generate_scenario' or 'implement_scenario'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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