get_results_section_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions data safety risks and the narrative structure, but lacks details on behavioral traits like auth needs or error handling. The description is adequate for a prompt generator but could be more explicit.

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 highly concise, using a few sentences to convey purpose, format, and warnings. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids unnecessary words.

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 (not shown but indicated) and parameters are simple with descriptive names, the description provides enough context for the tool's use. It could mention the output format, but that is likely covered by the output schema.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain each parameter individually; it only implies a mapping through the format. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should add more detail.

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 verb 'Draft' and resource 'manuscript Results section narrative'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_introduction_section_prompt by specifying the Results section. The '[PRO]' prefix also indicates a professional tool.

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 explicit formatting instructions ('patient disposition → efficacy → safety') and data safety warnings. It implies when to use (for Results section) but does not explicitly say when not to use, though the tool name makes it clear.

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