kopern_grade_prompt

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by stating it uses the user's API keys and lists the 6 criteria types. It does not contradict the 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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every sentence adds necessary information with no superfluous words.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and parameters, it lacks detail on the output format beyond a score 0-1 and does not explain the six criteria types. Given no output schema, more specificity would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the criteria types used for evaluation and that the tool uses the user's API keys, which complements the schema parameters.

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 grades a system prompt against inline test cases, listing 6 specific criteria types and returning a score 0-1. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kopern_run_grading by focusing on inline test cases rather than pre-defined suites.

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 explains when to use the tool (grading a system prompt against inline test cases) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it nor explicitly contrasts it with alternatives like kopern_run_grading or kopern_create_grading_suite.

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