shorten_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the operation is synchronous and returns an operation result, which is useful, but it does not explain potential side effects, authentication needs, or what the result actually contains. This is insufficient for a tool with zero structured behavioral hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence of about 15 words. It front-loads the operation type and outcome without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids unnecessary padding.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the operation result looks like, any prerequisites, or how it integrates with Midjourney. The tool is left under-specified for an agent to invoke confidently without further investigation.

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 schema has one parameter 'prompt' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only indirectly refers to the prompt via the tool name and the parenthetical. It does not explicitly state that 'prompt' is the text to shorten, nor does it provide format constraints or examples. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool as running a synchronous Midjourney operation to shorten a prompt. The parenthetical '(shorten prompt)' disambiguates it from sibling tools like image_to_prompt or text_to_image. However, the phrase 'Run a synchronous Midjourney operation' is slightly generic, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked or which sibling tools are not appropriate. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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