enhance_prompt

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds 'Free, local, no API key required,' which aligns with no destructive or external state changes, and provides additional context about cost and privacy. It does not contradict annotations and adds value beyond them.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that convey the purpose and key features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description implies the output is a professional prompt. Given the simplicity of the tool and that it only enhances prompts, the description is reasonably complete. It could benefit from mentioning the format or structure of the enhanced prompt, but the current version is adequate.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 60% schema description coverage. The description does not add any parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. For covered parameters, the schema is sufficient, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb 'turn' and resource 'short idea into a professional image/video prompt'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_image and generate_video, which actually generate media, while this enhances prompts.

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 highlights that it is 'Free, local, no API key required,' which hints at when to use (privacy, no cost). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like get_inspiration or prompt_tools. Implied but not explicit.

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