copilot_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that execution is non-interactive and that stdout/stderr/exit code are captured and returned. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites like authentication, or that the prompt may trigger external service calls. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and the return value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too thin for a tool with 7 parameters and a sibling tool. It omits any information about when to use this over `copilot_command`, does not explain non-obvious parameters like `allow_all` or `extra_args`, and lacks any caveats about timeout or output format. The completeness is low.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for unannotated parameters. It only implicitly covers the 'prompt' parameter by mentioning the `copilot -p` command; no explanation is given for cwd, model, allow_all, extra_args, output_format, or timeout_seconds. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 runs a non-interactive Copilot prompt via `copilot -p` and returns stdout/stderr/exit code. It identifies the specific verb ('run'), resource ('Copilot prompt'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by emphasizing 'non-interactive'.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'non-interactive', which suggests using this tool when you want a one-shot prompt rather than an interactive session. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling tool `copilot_command` or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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