optimize_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavior. It states the core transformation but omits critical details: whether the prompt is expected to be a JSON string or plain text, how dynamic fields are identified (e.g., regex), what happens if no dynamic fields exist, and whether the return value is a new string or modified in-place. This lack of specificity limits agent understanding.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb 'moves'. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks essential context for reliable agent invocation. It does not specify expected input format, return value, edge case handling, or performance implications. The agent cannot predict tool behavior beyond the stated transformation.

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 0%, so the description must supplement the parameter definition. However, the description does not clarify what format the 'prompt' parameter should take (e.g., JSON string, plain text) or how dynamic fields are defined within it. The agent has only the type 'string' and no additional semantic clues.

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 action ('Moves dynamic fields... to end') and specifies the resource ('prompt'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compress_code, compress_json, hydrate, and redact_content by focusing on reordering for cache performance rather than compression or content alteration.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which the tool is effective. The agent must infer usage from the name and brief action statement.

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