extract_source_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context. It discloses the hidden meta tag mechanism, confirms it works on vanity-subdomain links, and illustrates how the returned prompt can be used. This goes beyond the input schema and provides a clear mental model of the tool's behavior.

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 three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. It then provides background context and a usage example. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. The length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has only one parameter, the schema covers it fully, and an output schema exists. The description covers the purpose, when to use it, the underlying mechanism, and an example of how to use the result. There are no significant gaps in understanding or invocation.

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 already covers the single 'url' parameter with 100% coverage, providing an example. The description adds extra semantic meaning by clarifying that vanity-subdomain links are also valid, which expands the allowed URL forms beyond the schema's example. This additional context justifies a score above baseline.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Extract' and a clear resource 'original source prompt from a HyperVault artifact URL'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_artifact or write_artifact, which deal with entire artifacts. The purpose is unmistakable and not a tautology.

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: 'Call this when the user shares a HyperVault link... and you want to understand or iterate on the artifact.' It provides a concrete scenario and example response. However, it does not mention when not to use it or reference alternatives, which would push it to a 5.

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