enhance_prompt

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'Free, no API key needed,' providing cost and authentication transparency beyond what annotations offer. No behavioral contradictions are present.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, usage, and key traits. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and read-only behavior, the description covers purpose, usage, transparency, and parameter guidance. Minor missing detail: the output format of the enhanced prompt is not described, but it is not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description (especially the detailed guidance on the 'style' enum) adds significant contextual meaning, explaining when to use each style and how it affects prompt generation. This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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: 'Transform a simple idea into a professional image generation prompt.' This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_image (which generates images) and get_inspiration (which provides gallery ideas).

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 says 'Use when the user provides a brief description... and needs a detailed, high-quality prompt' and suggests combining with gallery inspiration. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly name sibling alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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