enhance_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'free, no API key needed' adds minor behavioral context. It does not detail rate limits or failure modes, but the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage make this acceptable.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the transformation, providing a use case, and offering a tip. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main function.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, usage context, and accessibility. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description's mention of 'simple idea' aligns with the prompt parameter, but adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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: transforming a simple idea into a professional image generation prompt. It provides a concrete example ('a cat in a garden') and implies its role as a prompt enhancer distinct from image generation tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user provides a brief description and needs a detailed, high-quality prompt') and suggests combining with gallery inspiration. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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