get_execution_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes 'nextSteps for implementation' and instructs the agent to update task status, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not clarify whether the tool has side effects beyond returning a prompt, so transparency is moderate.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, the second adds important workflow and response-content context. Every sentence earns its place, and the ⚠️ warning highlights the crucial instruction about nextSteps. 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the prompt will include (dependencies, risks, patterns, guidelines, nextSteps) and when to call it (after save_task_analysis). This is nearly complete, but it could be more explicit about the expected return format, leaving a slight gap.

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% and the only parameter, taskId, is already described as 'Task ID to get execution prompt for'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Generates an enriched execution prompt with full context for implementing a task' – a specific verb (Generates) with a clear resource (execution prompt). It also lists what the prompt includes (dependencies, risks, patterns, guidelines), making the purpose concrete and distinct from generic prompt 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 says 'Call this after save_task_analysis', providing a clear workflow sequence. It also implies the tool is meant for the implementation phase, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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