venue_resolution_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, read/write behavior, or output format. It does none of this, leaving the agent to guess whether the tool prompts, stores, or resolves data.

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 brief but not effectively concise; it is vague and lacks actionable structure. It reads more like a label than a useful tool description.

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 incomplete for correct invocation: no output behavior, no parameter roles, no expected side effects, and no relation to the other pipeline prompts. A user cannot reliably predict what will happen.

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 provides no descriptions for project_dir or domain_summary, and the description does not clarify how they are used. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not.

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 says 'Stage 1 instructions' and mentions 'paper type/venue capture and template resolution,' but it does not clearly state what the tool actually does, what it returns, or how it behaves. It is too vague to distinguish from the other prompt-stage tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling prompt tools such as screening_prompt, structure_drafting_prompt, humanization_prompt, or final_qa_prompt. 'Stage 1' implies sequencing but does not explain the decision criteria or workflow context.

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