prompt_generator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently says the tool 'Returns customized prompts you can copy and use immediately,' implying a non-mutating, generation-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state absence of side effects, rate limits, or other operational caveats.

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 well-structured and front-loads the core action, then provides input guidance and output expectation. The examples add useful context rather than padding. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple three-parameter generation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential input semantics and output value. It could be more complete by naming the sibling 'marketing_prompts' as an alternative, but the overall invocation contract is clear.

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 'business_type' with multiple examples, and clarifies that 'goals' and 'platforms' are optional via 'optionally your marketing goals and preferred platforms.' It does not specify a format for multi-value strings, but the semantic meaning for all three parameters is present.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a personalized set of marketing prompts.' It clearly states what the tool does and provides concrete examples of the required input. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'marketing_prompts' tool, so it loses the sibling differentiation point.

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 gives clear usage context: provide business type, optionally goals and platforms, and get prompts. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'marketing_prompts' or 'marketing_categories', nor does it state when not to use it.

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