final_qa_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions only that it provides 'instructions' for a check, without stating whether it reads/writes files, modifies project content, or is read-only. This leaves the tool's behavioral footprint ambiguous.

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 sentence that concisely conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It packs key terms—'Stage 4,' 'whole-paper,' 'consistency/hallucination/venue-fit'—without unnecessary filler.

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 has three parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out critical context such as what the instructions produce, whether they modify the paper, and how the parameters affect the check. The brief phrase 'instructions' does not sufficiently explain the tool's operation or expected result.

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 0% parameter coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'venue_name' is only loosely implied by 'venue-fit,' while 'project_dir' and 'max_roundtrips' are not addressed at all. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Stage 4 instructions' for a 'whole-paper consistency/hallucination/venue-fit check,' which conveys its primary function. It distinguishes itself from earlier-stage prompts by mentioning 'Stage 4' and 'whole-paper,' though it does not use an explicit action verb.

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 'Stage 4' label implies it should be used after earlier stages in the workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling prompts or when not to use it. It names the checks performed, giving some context, but lacks direct guidance on sequencing or alternatives.

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