get_discussion_section_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states it drafts a Discussion section, which suggests it is a prompt generator (read-only), but it does not confirm that it does not modify data, requires no authentication, or any side effects. The description lacks behavioral details beyond purpose.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it omits necessary details about parameters and usage, so conciseness comes at the expense of completeness. It is not overly verbose, but the structure lacks information needed for proper use.

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?

With an output schema present but not detailed, the description does not need to explain return values. However, given the tool has 3 required parameters with no schema descriptions, the description should at least list and explain them. It also fails to clarify that this is a prompt tool (though sibling context hints). The description is incomplete for effective 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not mention the three required parameters (study_summary_and_key_result, prior_studies_comparators, study_limitations) or explain how to provide input. Users get no guidance on what these parameters represent or how to fill them.

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 drafts a Discussion section and lists the components it covers (primary finding, context vs prior studies, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_introduction_section_prompt by focusing on the Discussion section.

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 use when drafting a Discussion section by naming the section, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to, or provide alternatives. Given many sibling section-focused tools, usage is somewhat clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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