get_author_invitation_email_prompt

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

No annotations provided. The description only covers output characteristics (tone, length) but does not disclose tool behavior such as whether it sends emails, safety constraints, or what happens with inputs. Minimal transparency beyond what is obvious.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the key purpose and constraints. Highly efficient and to the point.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description covers purpose, tone, alignment, and length. Missing explicit mapping of 4 required inputs, but purpose is clear enough for a prompt generator.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain any parameters, leaving their meaning entirely to their names. No added value beyond schema field names.

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 it generates a prompt for an author invitation email, specifies ICMJE alignment, tone, and target length. It distinguishes itself from sibling prompt tools through its specific purpose.

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 for drafting invitation emails but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives among many similar prompt tools.

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