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 states behavioral traits like not solving or computing, but it mentions 'route result' as input, which is not present in the input schema. This inconsistency misleads the agent about required inputs. It does not disclose side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a composition tool, the missing route result is a significant gap.

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 concise at three sentences, with the main verb 'compose' front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary details and every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe several key parameters and omits the 'route result' input mentioned in the text from the schema. The output schema exists but the description does not explain how the prompt_text is structured.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains module_hint and section_context but ignores options, image_present, strict_mode, and include_scaffold_summary. Only 3 of 7 parameters are described. The description adds some meaning beyond schema but is insufficient for the agent to understand all parameters.

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 composes a structured analysis prompt from question and route result. It distinguishes itself from solving questions by explicitly stating what it does not do, and mentions the return type (prompt_text) and consumption target (LLM). This differentiates it from siblings like compose_xingce_answer_prompt.

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 supporting module_hint and section_context to guide routing, giving context on when to use optional parameters. It also clarifies that the tool does not solve questions, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like classify_question or route_xingce_question, nor does it state prerequisites for the route result.

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