get_onboarding_prompt_pack

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 describes the tool as fetching 'server-curated prompt contracts,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some context about the types of contracts but lacks details on the tool's operational 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics for 'artifact,' but lacks details on other parameters and behavioral aspects. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description's focus on input and usage is appropriate.

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 by explaining the 'artifact' parameter's purpose and listing its possible values (clarifications, market_position, etc.). However, it does not address 'product_slug' or 'client_id' parameters. Since there are 3 parameters and the description adds meaningful semantics for one, it partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('fetch') and resources ('server-curated prompt contracts'), and it distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'artifact' for focused contracts. It explicitly lists the types of required onboarding outputs (clarifications, conversation transcript, etc.), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when an agent needs exact formatting/expectations before generating') and lists specific use cases. It also distinguishes when to use the 'artifact' parameter for focused contracts, offering clear alternatives and context for usage.

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