Generates a prompt to humanize academic text, converting robotic or AI-generated phrasing into natural, engaging writing while preserving meaning.
Stage 3 instructions: batched parallel paragraph rewrite + correction pass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batch_size | No | ||
| max_retries | No | ||
| project_dir | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it performs batched parallel rewriting and a correction pass, which gives some insight into behavior. However, it does not state what files or content are modified, whether it is destructive, or any side effects. With no annotations, this limited information is insufficient.
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 extremely concise, which is efficient, but it is a fragment rather than a well-structured sentence. It lacks clear organization or sections, making it feel incomplete despite being brief.
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?
The description is too sparse to be complete. It does not mention what the tool returns, how it uses the output schema, or any important context about the rewriting/correction process. Given the existence of an output schema and three parameters, more context is needed to 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the parameters. batch_size, max_retries, and project_dir are listed but their purposes and expected values are not described. Since there are no parameter descriptions, the agent cannot properly construct arguments.
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 clear action ('rewrite + correction pass') and identifies it as 'Stage 3 instructions,' but it is vague about the specific input, output, and scope. It does not clearly differentiate itself from other prompt tools like structure_drafting_prompt or final_qa_prompt beyond the stage number.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Stage 3' but does not explain the overall pipeline, what conditions trigger this stage, or how it relates to sibling prompt tools. The user is left to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.