aura_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the two-pass structure, that Pass 1 emits a draft plus six questions, that the user must be asked via the native question UI, that Pass 2 emits final_prompt + plan order + suggested calls, and the confirm-before-scaffolding guardrail. Auth, rate limits, and error behavior remain unstated.

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?

Front-loads the core concept ('Need-based design prompt in 2 passes') and stays compact despite covering a two-pass workflow. The nested parenthetical is dense but every clause carries information, so little is wasted.

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?

For a complex, multi-pass tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the workflow and both return payloads, which is the critical missing structured data. The gaps are the undocumented 'surfaces' parameter and the absence of any sibling-selection guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains goal (Pass 1 alone vs Pass 2 with answers), answers (Pass 2 only), and notes mode folds into theme, which is genuinely useful. But 'surfaces' and the enum values/format of 'system' are never addressed, leaving part of the surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — a need-based design prompt generated in two passes — and describes both pass outputs. It distinguishes itself from the search/inspect siblings by routing the agent toward inspo.recommend, but does not contrast against planning siblings like aura_docs_plan or aura_design_blueprint.

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?

Gives clear in-tool workflow: call with goal only for Pass 1, then with goal + answers for Pass 2, and 'always confirm with user before scaffolding.' However, it never says when to choose this tool over the many planning/blueprint siblings, which is the harder selection decision.

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