Prompt Engine

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it returns instructions rather than executing phases itself ("WHAT YOU DO: Execute each phase yourself"). It also details retry limits, presets, modifiers, and shell validation behavior, which go beyond the structured schema.

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 moderately long but well-organized into sections (WHAT IT RETURNS, WHAT YOU DO, SYNTAX, PRESETS, MODIFIERS). Each section contributes practical usage information with minimal waste, though it could be tightened.

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 complexity (8 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the overall workflow, syntax, chaining, validation, presets, and modifiers. It does not explicitly explain the resume parameters (chain_id, gate_verdict, user_response) but the schema descriptions cover those, so the description adds sufficient context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level syntax context (e.g., >>prompt_id, :: verify) but does not map those directly to the named parameters or add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It introduces concepts like verify and presets that don't correspond clearly to schema fields.

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 verb and resource: "Execute prompts with C.A.G.E.E.R.F framework and ground-truth validation." It defines what it returns (prepared prompt + phase instructions) and what the agent should do, making it distinct from sibling tools like system_control and resource_manager.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (for executing prompts with CAGEERF and validation) and how to invoke it via syntax examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that selection is unambiguous.

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