Get the prompt for a later pipeline stage

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint false, meaning the tool should not be treated as side-effect-free, but the description presents it purely as a fetch and never mentions any state changes, counters, or pipeline advancement. This contradicts the annotation, so the score is 1 per rubric.

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 core purpose and then the call pattern. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and a false read-only hint, the description omits return-value details, ordering constraints beyond 'previous finished', and any warning about side effects or limits. It's enough for a happy-path call but incomplete for safe and correct use.

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 covers only 3 of 6 properties, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for `context` (the previous stage's output) and implies `role` selects the stage, but it leaves `scope`, `memory_limit`, and `knowledge_limit` unexplained. Net moderate value.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('system prompt for one stage of a plan returned by brief'), and ties it to the sibling 'brief' by referencing the plan it operates on. This clearly distinguishes it from list/get_entry/search siblings.

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 gives concrete call timing: call when the previous stage is finished, and instructs to pass that stage's output as context. It doesn't enumerate alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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