Credit Optimizer v5

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 the tool returns optimization recommendations but lacks details on behavioral traits such as processing time, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs analysis.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. It uses bullet-like sections for Args and Returns, but could be more concise by integrating these into a single paragraph without losing clarity.

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 moderate complexity (analysis with optimization), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. It outlines the return components (strategy, model, savings, etc.), reducing the need to explain return values. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context.

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. It adds meaning by specifying that the 'prompt' parameter is 'The user's prompt/task description to analyze', clarifying its semantics beyond the basic string type in the schema. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('AI agent prompt'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on prompt optimization rather than retrieving rules or strategies. It specifies the output includes recommendations, savings, and directives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_golden_rules, get_strategy_for_task). The description implies usage for prompt analysis but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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