get_system_prompt_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the return value ('Dictionary with system_prompt content'), enumerates the included information (workflow steps, tool usage examples, best practices), and gives an example call. It does not mention potential side effects or prerequisites, but as a pure read-only getter, the risks are minimal. Overall it provides sufficient transparency for this simple tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then provides usage guidelines, content summary, return type, and an example. Every section serves a purpose. The example is slightly redundant but harmless. This is a model of clear, organized tool documentation.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It states the return type, the content of the returned prompt, and when to use it. The only minor gap is the exact structure of the dictionary (e.g., key name beyond 'system_prompt'), but the example and description suffice for an agent to invoke and use the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 according to the rubric. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed given the empty schema. It correctly highlights that the tool takes no input, which is implicitly clear from the schema.

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 function: 'Get the CoordMCP system prompt with mandatory workflow instructions.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('system prompt'), and explicitly distinguishes the content from other context/guidance tools by emphasizing 'complete system prompt' and 'mandatory workflow instructions.' This makes it unique among sibling tools like get_workflow_guidance_tool.

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 provides a clear 'WHEN TO USE' section listing specific scenarios: at agent startup, to understand the mandatory workflow, and as a reference for best practices. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use get_workflow_guidance_tool instead), which prevents a score of 5.

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