get_build_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'bounded user customization' adds some useful behavior context – customization is constrained – but never explains what those bounds are or how they interact with the passed parameters.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the operation. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse given the complexity of the tool's inputs.

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?

With no output schema and four parameters at 0% description coverage, the description is the only prose available and it is far too thin. It never explains the id semantics, how brief/headline/accent customize the prompt, or what a returned build prompt looks like.

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 carries the full burden for four parameters and largely fails: it only loosely gestures at 'user customization' without explaining id, brief, accent, or headline. The accent hex pattern and maxLengths are discoverable from the schema, but the meaning and effect of each param is undocumented anywhere.

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 verb 'Return' plus resource 'template build prompt' gives a rough sense of the operation, but 'bounded user customization' is vague and the definition does nothing to distinguish it from the large cluster of sibling template tools (get_template, get_template_source, verify_template_source, etc.). An agent cannot confidently tell when this returns a build prompt versus a stored template.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives, and no prerequisites for the required id. With ~38 siblings including several template-retrieval tools, the absence of any routing signal is a real gap.

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