upload_and_generate_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the main behavioral steps (upload, parse, wrap) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the file is stored. This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some uncertainty.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It front-loads the main action and includes only essential details.

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 is relatively simple, the schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists. The description is complete enough for an agent to know how to invoke it, though it could mention that the template must exist (a gap covered by sibling tools).

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?

The schema covers both parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds useful context about accepted file types, which goes slightly beyond the schema, but it does not significantly enhance understanding of the 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 action (upload), the resource (aviation accident report), accepted formats (PDF, DOCX, TXT), and the processing steps (parse and wrap in a prompt template). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that only list templates or reports.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a report file to upload and need to generate a prompt. Context is clear, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like using 'list_available_templates' if only browsing templates.

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