get_system_prompt

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

The description goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by explicitly stating the tool does NOT write anything, returns prompt text + target path + placement policy, and explains the AIMFP guarantee of never writing outside .aimfp-project/. It also describes consolidation behavior for large existing files.

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 paragraph. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 only one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and safety guarantees comprehensively. No gaps remain.

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 single parameter 'existing_content' is already fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context by explaining why to pass it: so placement guidance can account for size/consolidation. This adds meaning 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 clearly states the tool returns the AIMFP system prompt plus target path and placement policy. The verb 'Returns' is specific, and it distinguishes this read-only operation from sibling tools like 'add_*' or 'update_*' that modify state.

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 specifies that the tool is intended as the first move for plugin installs, and clarifies that the AI should call this and then write the file. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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