prompt_quick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'generate[s] a quick prompt' but does not describe what the output looks like, whether any side effects exist, or what safety implications are. For a generation tool, this is thin.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified; conciseness here sacrifices useful detail, but as a structural evaluation, it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity (2 params, one enum) and the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what kind of prompt is produced and how it is returned. It does not, nor does it mention any preliminary expectations (e.g., whether context must be a specific format). The agent is left without enough information to confidently invoke or interpret the result.

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 the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only a vague mention of 'common crypto analysis tasks' which loosely maps to the task enum, but does not add meaningful usage semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('a quick prompt') with scope ('common crypto analysis tasks'). It is understandable and actionable, but does not distinguish this tool from sibling prompt_generate, which also appears to generate 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prompt_generate or prompt_build_custom. The description implies it is for common tasks but does not explicitly contrast it with other prompt-related tools, leaving the agent to guess.

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