prompt_build_custom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Build a custom prompt with guided structure,' which does not explain the return value, whether the prompt is stored or generated on the fly, or what 'guided structure' entails. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. It is not verbose, but it lacks additional structure or details that could help an agent; however, that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 has four parameters (two required) and no output schema, the description should explain what the result of building a prompt looks like (e.g., a string, a saved entity) and how 'guided structure' is determined. The current one-line description is too sparse to fully inform an AI agent selecting this tool.

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 input schema fully covers all four parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Main topic or asset to analyze', 'Types of analysis to include'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool builds a custom prompt, using the verb 'Build' and the object 'custom prompt'. The qualifier 'with guided structure' adds a hint about the tool's approach, giving it more specificity than a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like prompt_generate or prompt_quick, which likely also create prompts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as prompt_quick or prompt_generate. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool over its siblings.

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