generate_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclosing meaningful behavior: it writes/replaces the PCM section of a file (a mutation of existing content) or returns text if no path is given. It lacks details on whether a missing file is created or what markers delimit the PCM section, which a full disclosure would include.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the conditional behavior follows immediately. Every clause carries information with no padding.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers both branches (write-to-file vs. return-text) and the replacement semantics. It stops short of defining what constitutes a 'PCM section' or file-creation behavior, which would make it fully self-contained.

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%, so the single parameter is already documented, including the replace behavior. The description restates this semantics in a sentence but adds no format or path syntax detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (PCM system prompt) and clarifies the optional side effect (saving to a file). It does not differentiate itself from siblings, but the sibling set (context CRUD, workflow tools) is unrelated enough that ambiguity is low.

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 clearly explains the two operating modes selected by output_path (save vs. return text), which is conditional usage guidance. However, it never states when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives or what triggers prompt generation, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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