validate_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it checks for valid variable syntax and returns extracted variables, but does not disclose what happens on invalid syntax, whether it modifies state (likely not), or any permissions needed. The behavior is partially described but lacks completeness.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds key detail. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks information about error behavior, return format, and whether it requires any special permissions. It is not fully complete for an agent to understand all implications.

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 100% (the parameter 'prompt' is described as 'Prompt template to validate'). The description adds that it checks variable syntax and returns extracted variables, providing context beyond the schema. However, this is not highly detailed, so a 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 the verb 'validate' and the resource 'prompt template syntax'. The second sentence specifies that it checks variable syntax and returns extracted variables. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings; there is no mention of when to use this over other tools like validate_code.

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. The description implies usage for validation but lacks explicit context, such as prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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