Grade a prompt

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

Describes output (grade, breakdown, guidance, taskId) but no annotations exist. Lacks disclosure on side effects, safety, or rate limits. CRG-RIS term is unexplained.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second describes return values and follow-up. No fluff, front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully covers return values (grade, breakdown, guidance, taskId) and next steps. Adequate for simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Single parameter promptText with schema description 'The exact prompt text to grade.' Schema covers 100%, description adds 'exact' nuance but no major additional semantics.

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?

Description clearly defines verb 'scores', resource 'prompt', and the rubric categories (Specificity, Clarity, Scope, Verification, Constraint Calibration). Distinguishes from sibling tools: explain_rubric, get_prompting_history, log_outcome.

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?

Indicates usage for prompts about to be sent or just sent. Provides actionable follow-up to call log_outcome. Does not explicitly state when not to use or exclude alternatives.

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