get_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 tool retrieves a 'System Prompt' with '核心规范和工具调用指令' (core specifications and tool invocation instructions), implying it's a read-only operation that provides configuration data. However, it doesn't mention behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or any constraints (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). The description adds basic context but lacks depth for full 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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage advice. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the advice more seamlessly, but overall, it's clear and wastes no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and suggests how to use the output, but it lacks details on the return format (e.g., what the 'System Prompt' looks like) or any error conditions. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at the response structure, but it only covers basic context, leaving gaps for full agent understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). According to the rules, with 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage.

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 purpose: '获取配置给 AI (Cursor/Windsurf) 的最佳 System Prompt，包含核心规范和工具调用指令' (Get the best System Prompt configured for AI (Cursor/Windsurf), including core specifications and tool invocation instructions). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and the resource 'System Prompt', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_ioc_page' or 'validate_code_standards', which appear unrelated, so it doesn't fully address sibling distinction.

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 implied usage guidance: '建议将其复制到 .cursorrules 或 .windsurfrules 文件中' (It is recommended to copy it to .cursorrules or .windsurfrules files), suggesting when to use the output. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use criteria or named alternatives. The guidance is practical but not comprehensive, leaving some ambiguity about optimal usage scenarios.

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