get_adapt_abstract_audience_prompt

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'rewrite an abstract' but tool name implies it returns a prompt (get_..._prompt). This ambiguity is not clarified. No disclosure of what the output is, whether modification is done, or any side effects. Safety note is helpful but insufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, use cases, safety note. No extra words. Front-loaded with the core action. Very efficient.

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 prompt-generating tool, it explains its niche and includes a safety warning. However, it lacks description of return value (output schema exists but not referenced), and does not explain all parameters. With no annotations, more detail on behavior and output would improve completeness.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It covers abstract_text ('abstract') and target_audience ('different audience', examples given), but does not mention the reading_level parameter or its default. Provides some context but incomplete for all three parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'rewrite' and resource 'abstract for a different audience', with specific use cases (patient summaries, nurse education, general medical audiences). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_manuscript_edit or get_discussion_section_prompt by focusing on audience adaptation.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Useful for patient summaries, nurse education, or general medical audiences.' Also includes a safety note ('Only paste published or approved text.'). However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly differentiate from alternatives beyond the stated use cases.

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