claude_prompt_with_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: 'headless, stateless mode', 'Returns the model's text response', and 'Uses the server process's current working directory; file paths are resolved relative to cwd.' However, it lacks details about rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format specifics.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality and key differentiators, the second adds important operational context about working directory and file path resolution. Every element earns its place with no wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not complete coverage. It explains the core operation and some behavioral context but lacks details about response format, error handling, or model selection implications. For a tool with this complexity and no structured safety/behavior annotations, more completeness would be helpful.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about how 'context' and 'files' parameters work ('prepended to the prompt'), but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Run a one-shot prompt'), the target ('Claude Code CLI'), the mode ('headless, stateless mode'), and key differentiators from siblings ('with additional free-form context and/or file contents prepended'). It distinguishes this tool from 'claude_prompt' and 'claude_prompt_structured' by emphasizing the context/file prepending capability.

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 for when to use this tool ('with additional free-form context and/or file contents prepended to the prompt'), which implicitly suggests alternatives when such context isn't needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific sibling alternatives beyond the general differentiation.

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