improve_r_prompt

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

The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral guarantee beyond annotations — that the original text and constraints are preserved, i.e. the transformation is non-destructive. However, with openWorldHint=true, it says nothing about enhancement_mode='external' potentially reaching outside the process, nor about how the three modes differ, which is the main behavioral risk an agent needs disclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally good, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any parameter or mode explanation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 10-parameter tool with three enums and a defaulted enhancement_mode, this one-liner leaves an agent unable to choose values for most inputs. It is complete only on the single required path.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains none of them — target, packages, r_version, detail_level, improvement_goals, enhancement_mode, project_context, structured_context and bioconductor_release are all opaque. Only 'constraints' loosely gestures at existing_prompt's semantics.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Structure an existing prompt') plus the key invariant (retains original text and constraints), so an agent knows this is a non-lossy rewrite of a supplied prompt rather than a new-prompt generator. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings build_r_prompt or validate_r_prompt, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of build_r_prompt (create from scratch) or validate_r_prompt (check an existing one) as alternatives, even though these are the tools an agent would most plausibly confuse with this one. The agent must infer the routing itself.

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