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

The description doesn't add behavioral traits beyond the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true', which already indicates it's a safe read operation. It lacks details like pagination, sorting, or what 'available' entails (e.g., permissions, scope). No contradiction with annotations exists, but minimal value is added.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without extra words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only), no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'available' means and doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add or compensate for any gaps, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary info.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating prompts), or comparisons to siblings like 'create-prompt' for adding new prompts. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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