Crafting Prompt

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world behavior, which the description doesn't contradict, but it adds no behavioral context beyond that—no details on rate limits, authentication needs, or output characteristics. With annotations covering safety, a 3 reflects minimal added value.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters.

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 tool's complexity with 6 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety, the description is incomplete—it lacks details on parameter meanings, output format, and usage scenarios, making it inadequate for full understanding.

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 low at 33%, with only 'request' and 'constraints' described in the schema. The description mentions 'a few settings' but doesn't explain parameters like 'mode,' 'approach,' 'tone,' or 'verbosity,' failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('structured, reusable workflow prompt for complex tasks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'boost_prompt' and 'fix_prompt' by focusing on creating prompts from raw requests rather than enhancing or repairing existing ones.

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 usage by mentioning 'based on a raw request and a few settings,' suggesting it's for turning user input into prompts, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'boost_prompt' or 'fix_prompt,' or any context-specific exclusions.

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