build_minutes_prompt

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral fact that this MCP does not invoke the LLM and only assembles instructions — a genuinely non-obvious trait for a tool named 'build_minutes_prompt' that an agent might otherwise assume performs the summarization itself. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured: a purpose sentence up front, followed by a behavioral note, then clean Args and Returns sections. The behavioral note earns its place by preventing the agent from expecting an LLM call. The docstring-style formatting (Args/Returns headers) is slightly verbose but reads efficiently and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, everything an agent needs is present: purpose, role in the pipeline, parameter defaults, and the return concept (rules + template + original text). No consequential gaps remain.

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 100%; note_id and with_line_numbers are already documented, with with_line_numbers explaining the 'L14' citation format and default true. The Args section of the description largely restates the schema (note id, default True), adding little beyond it. With full schema coverage, 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 states a specific action — combining meeting notes with a standard template to return a meeting-minutes writing prompt — which clearly distinguishes it from siblings that read notes, extract facts, validate drafts, or save minutes. The title '회의록 작성 프롬프트 생성' reinforces this. Nothing ambiguous about what resource is acted on or what is produced.

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 explains the tool's role in the pipeline: it does not call the LLM API, the host (Claude/Codex) performs summarization, and this tool only assembles formatting instructions. This tells the agent this is the prompt-preparation step rather than a summarizer or validator. It lacks explicit 'use X instead' routing or when-not-to-use guidance, but the workflow context is clearly conveyed.

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