get_strengthen_conclusions_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly notes 'DATA SAFETY: Only use published or approved text', which is a behavioral constraint beyond mere modification. This adds value, though it does not disclose other traits like auth needs or side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and a safety note. No extraneous text, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks parameter guidance and usage context beyond the purpose. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete with examples or parameter descriptions.

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 the two parameters (current_conclusion, primary_endpoint_result). It only describes the tool's purpose, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names. This is insufficient given low coverage.

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 'rewrite' and the resource 'abstract conclusion', and it distinguishes the tool by specifying it addresses weak conclusions, a common rejection reason. Among siblings like get_structured_abstract_prompt or get_discussion_section_prompt, this tool's focus on strengthening conclusions is unique.

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 an abstract conclusion is weak ('Addresses the #1 reason abstracts get rejected'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context from siblings shows many abstract-related tools, so clearer differentiation would help.

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