Hi-AI

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

No annotations are provided beyond a title, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool analyzes prompt quality and provides improvement suggestions, which implies a read-only analysis with constructive feedback. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific aspects of 'quality' are evaluated, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 run-on string with synonyms separated by pipes, making it poorly structured and hard to parse. It includes redundant terms ('analyze prompt' and 'evaluate prompt') without clear organization, reducing readability and efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It vaguely states the purpose but lacks details on what the analysis entails, how results are returned, or behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'prompt' and 'criteria' parameters adequately. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of criteria or how analysis is performed, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 lists synonyms ('analyze prompt|rate this|score|how good|prompt quality|evaluate prompt|assess') which vaguely indicate the tool's purpose but lack specificity about what 'analyze' entails. It mentions 'provide improvement suggestions' which adds some clarity, but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'enhance_prompt' or 'suggest_improvements' that might have overlapping functionality.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention when-not scenarios or compare to siblings such as 'enhance_prompt' or 'suggest_improvements', leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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