compose_xingce_analysis_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool does not solve questions, compute answers, or select options, and returns prompt_text for LLM consumption. This provides good insight into its behavior and limitations.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, clear exclusions, and no wasted words. Excellent structure.

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 adequately conveys the core function, but fails to explain the role of 'route result' (not in schema) and how the tool fits with siblings. Given the output schema exists, return details are acceptable.

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%. The description only explains module_hint and section_context, leaving the purpose of options, strict_mode, image_present, and include_scaffold_summary unclear. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 it composes a structured analysis prompt from question and route result, and explicitly states what it does not do (solve questions, compute answers, or select options). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'compose_xingce_answer_prompt' or other scaffold tools.

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 support for module_hint and section_context to guide routing, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scaffold tools or solve tools.

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