build_r_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by stating the prompt is editable and that stages are composed 'without executing them,' but it does not explain how workflow stages are detected or what the result looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Its brevity is appropriate for the conciseness dimension, even though the definition is under-specified elsewhere.

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 tool with 18 parameters and no schema descriptions, the one-sentence description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but composition mode, enhancement mode, target, packages, and other parameters remain unexplained.

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 schema has 18 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them: target, packages, templates, constraints, composition_mode, enhancement_mode, and the rest are left entirely undocumented. This is a critical gap for a complex tool.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Build one editable R prompt.' It also clarifies that it composes workflow stages without executing them, which helps distinguish it from analysis/execution tools, though it does not name sibling alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as improve_r_prompt, validate_r_prompt, or get_r_prompt_context. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'compose detected workflow stages.'

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