evaluate_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the tool is heuristic and 'transparent', and its output is explicitly not a correctness proof, which is meaningful expectation-setting for an evaluation tool.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the limitation. Every sentence carries weight, though the opening could be more concrete about operating on the input prompt.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The gap is the undocumented optional 'originalPrompt' input and the absence of any link to the other prompt tools, which for a nine-sibling family is a notable omission.

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 mentions no parameters at all. In particular the optional 'originalPrompt' is left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot tell whether supplying it changes behavior (e.g. diffing a revised prompt).

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 it explains instruction quality via heuristic diagnostics, which separates it somewhat from optimize_prompt or compare_prompts. However, it never plainly says it evaluates the supplied prompt, and the verb 'Explain' is weaker than the tool name's 'evaluate', leaving the core action slightly vague.

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?

'Use for review, not as a scientific benchmark or proof of correctness' gives a directional use case and a caveat, which is real guidance. It offers no explicit when-not conditions tied to sibling tools like compare_prompts or optimize_prompt, so the agent must infer which of the nine siblings to pick.

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