prompt_mcp_developer_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the tool's behavior: uses stored analysis if no params, returns specific fields, and completes a workflow step. No mention of side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is implied and sufficient for the context.

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 front-loaded with the step number and purpose, and every sentence adds crucial information: prerequisite, parameter logic, return values, and next step. No wasted 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?

Given no output schema, the description does explain return values and workflow dependencies. However, it omits description of the 'input_type' parameter and lacks annotations, which would enrich the behavioral context. Adequate but not complete for a tool with 3 mostly undocumented parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two main parameters ('analysis' and 'openapi_input') and their relationship to the previous step, but fails to describe 'input_type', leaving it ambiguous. Adds semantic value beyond schema but incomplete.

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 is 'Step 2 of 6' and its purpose: 'get agent platform ecosystem context and prompts'. It specifies the prerequisite (validate_openapi) and differentiates from siblings by workflow position.

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 states when to use ('after validate_openapi'), how to handle missing parameters ('uses stored analysis'), and what comes next ('propose_endpoint_bundles'). Provides clear, actionable guidance for invocation.

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