[DEPRECATED — use get_component_prompt] Render a prompt by mechanical substitution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the substitution limitations, the behavior for components with zero substitutable values, the fact that structural values are never substituted and are listed under 'Valores no parametrizables', and the default behavior when `system` is omitted.

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 longer than typical but front-loaded with the deprecation warning and each sentence provides meaningful context. However, some historical details (e.g., 'judged 11/30', 'DECISIONS.md D15') are not essential for invocation and could be trimmed.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns, its edge cases, and defaults. It explains both the normal substitution behavior and the no-op behavior for inapplicable components, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the `system` parameter's default ('Omit `system` to use the component's native one') and clarifying what substitution applies to. This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 clearly that the tool is deprecated in favor of get_component_prompt, and explains its intended operation: 'Returns the component's build prompt with its motion tokens (ease/duration/stagger) replaced by the chosen motion system's values.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and distinguishes it from the sibling get_component_prompt.

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?

Explicitly directs users to the alternative: 'DEPRECATED in favour of get_component_prompt.' It also explains why mechanical substitution is unsuitable for this corpus, providing clear guidance on when this tool should not be used and that components with no substitutable values will return the prompt unchanged.

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