aptos_development_reminder_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 the tool is a 'prompt' and for 'reinforcing habits', but doesn't disclose key behaviors: what the prompt outputs (e.g., a reminder message), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's actual behavior upon invocation.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the key concept ('MID-DEVELOPMENT REMINDER') and every word adds value, making it highly concise.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers usage context. However, it lacks details on what the prompt actually does (e.g., output format or effect), which is a gap since there are no annotations or output schema to fill in behavioral aspects. For a zero-parameter tool, it's minimally complete but could be more informative.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on usage context. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist to document.

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 the tool is a 'MID-DEVELOPMENT REMINDER' prompt to 'reinforce MCP consultation habits', which clarifies its purpose as a behavioral nudge rather than a functional tool. However, it's vague about what the prompt actually does—does it output text, trigger an action, or something else? It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reminders, but lacks specificity about the mechanism.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when you notice the conversation has gone few exchanges without using MCP tools, or when implementing new Aptos features'. This provides clear, actionable context for invocation, distinguishing it from alternatives like debugging or building tools. No exclusions are mentioned, but the guidance is sufficient for decision-making.

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