check_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 states the tool is a 'quick pass/fail check' and notably says 'No compilation, no session', implying no side effects or state changes. This is sufficient for a read-only check tool, though it does not explicitly declare non-destructive behavior.

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: three short sentences that front-load the purpose and outputs. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns (score, top issues, suggestion), and what it does not do. It covers the essential behavioral context needed for a simple check tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('raw_prompt' and 'context') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating parameter names implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 does a 'Quick pass/fail check of a prompt' and lists specific outputs (score, top issues, suggestion). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'No compilation, no session', which contrasts with tools that might involve compilation or sessions.

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 for a fast, lightweight check without compilation or session overhead. It gives context on what it does not do, helping the agent choose between this and more involved tools like 'optimize_prompt' or 'refine_prompt'. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

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