promptsharp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses the operation is a fetch (non-destructive) and includes a license scope requirement. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency or error handling, which is acceptable for a simple read 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 sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence defines the action and output; the second adds a necessary constraint. Every word contributes meaning, achieving conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers: what is retrieved (full prompt, guardrails, note) and a usage condition (license scope). No additional context is essential for 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?

The sole parameter 'id' is described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing an example ('e.g. pros-01') and citing its source ('from search_prompts results'), clarifying usage beyond schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource 'prompt by id'. It details what is returned (full copy-paste prompt, guardrails, why-it-works note), differentiating it from sibling tools like search_prompts (which list/search) and list_verticals.

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 states a prerequisite: 'Requires that the prompt is within your license scope.' It implies usage after obtaining an id from search_prompts, providing clear context though not explicitly contrasting with alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-like operation ('list') but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it is read-only. It also omits any mention of authentication or rate limits. The disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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, well-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the verb 'list' and resource 'every vertical', making it immediately clear. Every word adds meaning; no 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 simple, parameterless tool, the description covers the functionality completely. It explains what is returned (sections, prompt counts, unlock status) and the scope (PromptSharp library, current license tier). No output schema is needed.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not add parameter details, but that is acceptable given no parameters exist. It does add value by describing the return fields (sections, prompt counts, unlock status), which aids usage.

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 'list', the resource 'every vertical', and what information is returned (sections, prompt counts, unlock status). It effectively distinguishes from siblings 'get_prompt' and 'search_prompts', which operate on individual prompts or search results.

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 implies when to use this tool (to view available verticals and their high-level details) and clearly differs from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, so it lacks full guidance.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that results are scoped to license tier, locked results appear as stubs with upgrade hints, and that public teasers are limited. This provides significant behavioral context beyond the input 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?

Two sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides critical licensing context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description explains licensing behavior well but does not cover output format or pagination. Given no output schema, this is a gap. Parameters are fully documented, so overall completeness is adequate but not excellent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain each parameter. It adds no specific parameter details beyond the schema but provides overall context about search behavior. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool searches the PromptSharp prompt library, specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'prompt library', and distinguishes from siblings (get_prompt for single retrieval, list_verticals for listing) by detailing behavior based on license tier. It is specific and 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 description explains when to use this tool by detailing license-dependent behavior (no token, vertical Pro, all-access) and implies that it is for searching, while siblings are for specific retrieval or listing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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