claude_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: stateless operation, no session persistence, no resume capability, and that it uses the server's current working directory. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format details that would be helpful for a tool with no output schema.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality and key behavioral constraints. The second sentence provides important operational context about the working directory. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the operational mode and working directory context well, but doesn't address what the return value looks like (only says 'Returns the model's text response' without format details), error conditions, or performance characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify usage patterns. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Run a one-shot prompt'), target resource ('Claude Code CLI'), and operational mode ('headless, stateless mode with no session persistence, no resume'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is a one-shot operation without persistence, unlike tools that might maintain context or structure outputs differently.

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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('headless, stateless mode with no session persistence, no resume'), which implicitly suggests alternatives when persistence or session management is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or provide explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance beyond the stateless nature.

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