screening_prompt

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, the tool's behavior is largely opaque. 'Pre-flight screening' implies a read-only check with no destructive actions, but this is not stated. There is no mention of side effects, whether it modifies files, what it returns, or any permissions or prerequisites needed. The description does not contradict annotations (since none exist), but it also discloses almost nothing about the tool's actual 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 extremely brief, consisting of a single short sentence. While this is concise, it is so terse that it sacrifices clarity. It is front-loaded with the 'Stage 0 instructions' label, but that phrase adds little meaning. The description could be longer without becoming verbose, so the conciseness is not well-balanced with informativeness.

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 simplicity of the tool (two string parameters, no output schema), one might argue less context is needed. However, the description is so vague that an agent cannot determine what 'screening' means, what inputs are expected, what outputs are produced, or how this step fits into a larger workflow. The lack of any behavioral or usage context makes it incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 two parameters, 'project_dir' and 'research_folder,' have no descriptions in the schema. Their names suggest they are directory paths, but the relationship between them is unclear (e.g., is research_folder a subdirectory of project_dir?). The description does not clarify the purpose or format of either parameter, leaving their semantics mostly to guesswork.

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 'Stage 0 instructions: pre-flight screening of a research folder,' which gives a vague sense of a checking or verification step but does not specify what the screening entails, what it verifies, or what outcome it produces. The verb 'screening' is imprecise and the resource ('research folder') is generic, leaving the purpose ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the sibling tools. The name 'screening_prompt' suggests it might be a preliminary step, but the description does not explicitly indicate when it should be invoked, what conditions warrant its use, or how it relates to other file/resource operations. No alternatives are mentioned.

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