prompt_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it modifies prompts (which is consistent). It does not detail the return format or any potential side effects, but the read-only annotation covers the safety aspect.

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: the first clearly states the core purpose, the second adds value by noting local vs. remote availability. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be clearer.

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?

The description covers core functionality but omits essential details like return value format and differentiation from sibling tools. With no output schema, the agent has no guidance on what to expect from the tool, leaving it incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions 'action' in the verb list and 'mediaType' implied by 'image/video'. The 'targetLanguage' parameter is not explained, and the difference between 'polish' and 'improve' is unclear.

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 translates, polishes, or improves an AI image/video prompt, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate it from the sibling tool 'enhance_prompt', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.

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 provides some usage context by noting that the tool is free locally and mentions an alternative (LemGen) when an API token is configured. But it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus other siblings like 'enhance_prompt' or 'generate_image'.

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