get_affine_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that data comes from the 'backend catalog' and lists content types, which is mildly useful context. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral details such as whether the returned data is cached, how the 'vars' parameter affects rendering, or pagination behavior. With annotations, this is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is given.

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 front-loads the primary action ('Retrieve') and names the resource. It is concise, with no wasted words, and every phrase earns its place by clarifying the scope (official, from backend catalog) and content types (prompt specs, system prompts, visual style guide, rendered templates).

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 straightforward, with strong annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema present. The description clearly states what the tool retrieves, and the output schema covers return-value details. There is a minor ambiguity about whether all listed content types are returned together or separately, but given the schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'promptId' is described with example values, and 'vars' is described as an optional template variable object. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither compensates nor hurts.

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 function: to retrieve official AFFiNE LLM prompt specs, system prompts, visual style guide, and rendered templates from the backend catalog. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and names the resource ('backend catalog') and content types, effectively distinguishing it from any sibling tools, none of which focus on prompt retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs official prompt-related content from the backend catalog. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool directly competes with this function, making the implied use case sufficient. A score of 4 is appropriate for clear context without explicit 'when-not' guidance.

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