build_rag_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the tool 'builds' a prompt without explaining how the question and context are combined, what operational meaning 'grounded' has, or whether this is a pure transformation with no side effects. This is a purpose statement rather than a behavioral specification.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the minimalism contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks guidance on prerequisites, when to use this tool versus siblings, and how answer_style alters the output. For an agent making a selection decision, the description is not sufficiently complete to ensure correct invocation.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It only paraphrases 'question' and 'context' without adding format, constraints, examples, or semantics, and it entirely omits the answer_style parameter beyond what the schema's enum already provides.

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 identifies the action (build) and the resource (a grounded RAG prompt) from question and retrieved context, which distinguishes it from the sibling search/retrieval tools. It doesn't fully elaborate on what a 'grounded RAG prompt' entails, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'retrieved context' implies this tool should be used after retrieval tools like search_knowledge_base or get_document, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. It also doesn't mention relationships to normalize_user_query or how answer_style affects invocation.

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