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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List all prompts' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sort order, whether archived prompts are included, or authentication requirements. This is a minimal statement with no additional context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using only two words to convey the essential action. There is no wasted text, though it might be seen as slightly terse. It earns a 4 for efficiency without being a tautology.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the list returns (e.g., array of prompt objects) or any relevant details like filtering or pagination. For a simple list tool, it provides the minimum but leaves the response format and behavior undefined, making the agent guess.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description needs to add nothing about parameter meaning since the schema already shows an empty object, and no parameters exist to document.

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 'List all prompts' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (prompts), and the word 'all' implies a collection-level operation, distinguishing it from prompts_get which would fetch a single prompt. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternative tools or edge cases, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prompts_get or prompts_list variants. The description only states what it does, with no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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