get_manuscript_outline_prompt

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It describes what the tool generates but does not indicate whether it is a one-time generation, if it requires special permissions, or what the output format is beyond 'a prompt'.

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 concise, with three short sentences. It delivers the main action and key details without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 4 required) and lack of schema descriptions, the description provides only high-level output details. The existence of an output schema mitigates return-value concerns, but parameter guidance is missing.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (manuscript_type, topic, journal, etc.). It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and types in the schema.

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 generates a prompt for a detailed manuscript outline, specifying included elements (section headers, word counts) and suitable manuscript types. It distinguishes from siblings that focus on specific sections or other tasks.

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?

It explicitly states suitability for original research, reviews, and case reports, giving context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives from the sibling list.

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