get_recommended_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The minimal description ('Get the recommended prompt structure for a specific stage') does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authorization, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a tool with zero 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 a single sentence, making it very concise. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. While every sentence earns its place, the content is largely redundant with the tool name and schema. A fully informative description would be slightly longer.

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 there are no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what the prompt structure is used for, what the return value looks like, or any additional context needed for correct invocation. The tool is part of a suite of QA tools, but the description does not leverage that context.

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 adds no parameter details. However, the input schema itself is well-defined with a single required parameter 'stage' and an enum of six clearly named stages (e.g., 'ticket-analysis', 'test-planning'), which are self-explanatory. The description does not add extra meaning, but the schema compensates somewhat. A score of 3 reflects that no additional value is provided beyond the schema.

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 states 'Get the recommended prompt structure for a specific stage', which clearly identifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('recommended prompt structure'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_stage_config' and 'get_model_recommendation' by focusing on prompt structure. However, it lacks specificity about what the prompt is used for, especially given the QA context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites. The description is too terse to help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like 'get_stage_config' or 'get_model_recommendation'.

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