get_poster_title_and_takeaways_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that it generates alternatives but omits any behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. For a prompt-generating tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and a tip. However, it lacks structure and does not separate purpose from best practice. Still, it earns its place without verbosity.

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 has 4 parameters (3 required) with zero schema documentation, the description should compensate but does not. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but input semantics are entirely missing, making the description 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%, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description fails to explain any of the four parameters (study_or_topic, congress, key_finding, character_limit), leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.

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 5 alternative congress poster titles and 3 take-home message bullets, with a specific tip about declarative titles. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_congress_abstract_prompt by specifying the exact output format.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contexts. It only includes a best practice tip but no usage context.

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