enhance_prompt

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read-only operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful operational context ('Free, no API key needed') but doesn't disclose return format or side effects. With the annotation covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 focused sentences: purpose, when to use, and an extra tip with operational info. Every sentence earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it does, when to use it, and a workflow suggestion. It doesn't explain the return format, but that is expected and covered by the schema's name and purpose. Slight gap on output specifics, but overall complete.

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 100%, with both 'prompt' and 'style' already well-documented. The description's example for prompt adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's example. No info about style is mentioned in the description, so it does not compensate beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Transform a simple idea into a professional image generation prompt'), clearly distinguishing the tool from image generation or inspiration siblings. The example ('a cat in a garden') reinforces the concrete function.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user provides a brief description... and needs a detailed, high-quality prompt.' It also suggests combining with gallery inspiration, giving workflow context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, which prevents a 5.

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