get_step_back_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a getter action with no mention of side effects, idempotency, or return characteristics. The description is insufficient for transparency.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the action. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, though it could be improved with additional context.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what a step-back reflection prompt is, how the tool should be used, or what the return value contains. It is not complete enough for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool without prior knowledge.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 applies per guidelines for 0-parameter tools.

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 'Get a step-back reflection prompt' states a verb and resource, which is clear in a basic sense. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_dispatch_template or get_framework, and it lacks specificity about what a 'step-back reflection prompt' is. The purpose is present but vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without directional cues.

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