Build a Kavel prompt

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read operation (getting a prompt) without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is behaviorally neutral but does not contradict any annotation.

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 two sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence serves a clear function: defining the output and providing usage instruction. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the behavior: it returns a prompt recipe and tells the user to paste it. It does not detail the return format, but the context makes it implicitly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples (e.g., 'make the figurine hold a skateboard') which slightly enhances understanding, but largely repeats schema descriptions. No significant additional meaning beyond schema.

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 purpose: 'Get a model-tuned prompt for a specific Kavel tool.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Kavel prompt'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which list models, list tools, or open pages.

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 advises pasting the result into the generator, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, making the usage context minimally adequate.

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