get_frontend_prompt

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds little beyond the annotation, but it does clarify that the output is a prompt rather than a deployment or a spec dump, which is useful context.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the most important information is frontloaded. Every clause adds value, either clarifying what the tool returns or how to construct the required parameter.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description is almost sufficient: it explains the output purpose, the required tool parameter, and how to resolve appId. The only gap is the undocumented optional organizationId and the missing claude-code enum value in the prose.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for appId by explaining it accepts a UUID or slug and directing the user to list_apps. However, it only mentions four of the five tool enum values, omitting claude-code, and gives no explanation for organizationId.

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 returns a ready-made prompt describing the app backend for use in frontend generators. It uses a specific verb and resource, and its purpose is distinguishable from siblings like get_app_spec or deploy_frontend, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 gives clear usage context: use it when you need a prompt to paste into a frontend generator, and it tells the agent how to find the app ID via list_apps. It does not enumerate when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the intended scenario is clear.

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