Triage raw prompt input: assess readiness and intent, ask clarifying questions, record assumptions, and compile a ready prompt. Runs offline by default.
Intake triage for raw prompt input: readiness, intent, clarifying questions, assumptions, and a compiled prompt. Offline by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| question | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait (offline by default, i.e. no network dependency) and lists the categories of output produced, which is useful since there is no output schema. But it never says how to leave offline mode, whether the call is side-effect free, or whether it is deterministic.
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?
Two tight clauses with no filler; the operation and its output list are front-loaded. The trailing 'Offline by default.' fragment is compact but slightly disconnected from the main clause.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum clarify the inputs and what 'readiness'/'intent'/'compiled prompt' mean. Listing output categories helps, but the undocumented question parameter and unelaborated output names leave real gaps.
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% and the description never mentions either parameter. 'Raw prompt input' only loosely implies the required text field, and the optional question parameter (default "") is entirely undocumented in both description and schema.
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?
Names a specific operation (intake triage) on a specific resource (raw prompt input) and enumerates the outputs it produces: readiness, intent, clarifying questions, assumptions, compiled prompt. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like prepare, compact, or inspect, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus prepare/inspect/compact, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use guidance. 'Offline by default' hints at a mode but does not say how or when to select a different one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.