growsurf_agent_program_creation_eval

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds value by specifying the output nature (eval prompts and acceptance checks for four areas), which goes beyond the structured hints and aligns with the read-only intent without contradiction.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists specific sub-areas. It is concise, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's scope without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool has two optional parameters and an output schema, but the description does not explain parameter usage, which is critical for correct invocation. While the output schema likely documents returns, the input side is underspecified, leaving the agent uncertain about how to set programType or includeOneShotPrompts for different eval scenarios.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention either parameter (programType or includeOneShotPrompts). The agent receives no semantic guidance on how these optional parameters influence the generated prompts, forcing inference from enum values and defaults alone.

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 generates one-shot eval prompts and acceptance checks for GrowSurf program creation, listing specific coverage areas (starter content review, conservative rewards, configuration review, frontend install proof). This distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 mentions 'for agent steering' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Since no sibling performs a similar function, the intended use is somewhat self-evident, but the lack of explicit usage context or conditions is a gap.

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