get_peer_review_response_prompt

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It provides a data safety warning ('Only reference published or approved data in supporting_data') and describes output qualities ('respectful, concise, data-driven'). However, it does not disclose whether the tool has any side effects, auth requirements, or other behaviors. The warning adds partial transparency.

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 three sentences: purpose, output qualities, and data safety. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and the structure is 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?

Given the output schema exists (so return format is covered), and the tool is a simple prompt generator with 3 parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks explanation of how parameters relate to the output or what the generated prompt looks like, leaving some uncertainty about exact usage.

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 but does not explain the parameters. It only mentions 'supporting_data' in the safety note. There is no description of what 'reviewer_comment' or 'action_taken' are or how to format them, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 drafting a point-by-point reviewer response, distinguishing it from sibling prompt generators like get_rebuttal_disagreement_prompt or get_author_review_request_prompt. The specific verb 'Generate a prompt' and resource 'reviewer response' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 when drafting a reviewer response but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it could mention that this is for responsive comments, while get_rebuttal_disagreement_prompt handles disagreement rebuttals.

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