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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds useful return-shape context (two headings, newest first) and the downstream slug workflow. It omits volume limits or pagination behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case and well ordered (trigger → contents → follow-up → exclusion). It is slightly longer than needed, with the 'word for word' aside and exclusion sentence adding length, but no sentence is truly waste.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return structure (Prompts/Skills headings, newest-first ordering) and what to do with the slugs. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema itself explains both 'kind' and 'brand' plus the default-brand fallback. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referencing 'slug' from the returned items, so the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists everything saved in the user's Nokbase library') and enumerates the two subtypes it returns, Prompts vs Skills. An agent can distinguish it from get_prompt/get_skill and from brand-context tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks which prompts or skills they have saved, or wants to run or reuse one and you don't know its slug'), an explicit exclusion ('Do not use this for brand voice, identity or saved facts. Use get_brand_context'), and a follow-up routing step ('Then call get_prompt or get_skill with the slug').

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