build_dapp_on_aptos_guidance_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. It discloses behavioral traits: it 'Sets up mandatory MCP consultation workflow' (implying it enforces a specific process) and 'prevents outdated knowledge usage' (indicating it controls information recency). However, it doesn't detail execution mechanics, side effects, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with no 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 highly concise and well-structured: a single sentence with two clauses that efficiently convey purpose and key behaviors. Every part earns its place, with no redundant information, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's complexity (a prompt with no parameters and no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's role and key behaviors. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on what the prompt contains or how it's applied, slightly limiting completeness.

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 with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline. It adds no parameter semantics, but that's acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a score above the minimum.

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 what the tool does: 'Use this as the main system prompt when building any Aptos dApp.' It specifies a verb ('use') and resource ('main system prompt'), and distinguishes its purpose from siblings by focusing on dApp building guidance. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from similar prompt tools like 'aptos_development_reminder_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?

The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'when building any Aptos dApp' specifies the context, and 'Sets up mandatory MCP consultation workflow and prevents outdated knowledge usage' explains when to use it. It implicitly distinguishes from other tools by being the 'primary prompt' for dApp building, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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