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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a rendered prompt as JSON with a messages array, and that arguments must be a dict mapping names to values. While it does not cover error conditions or permissions, the read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and the output description, providing useful transparency.

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 three short sentences, leading with the primary action, then the return type, then argument formatting. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and how to provide arguments. It omits edge-case behavior but is adequate for a straightforward getter tool.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 is warranted. The description adds value by specifying that arguments should be a dict and by clarifying the role of the name parameter, reinforcing and slightly expanding on the 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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('a prompt by name') and mentions optional arguments, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'list_prompts'. It clearly states the action of retrieving a single rendered prompt, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implied usage is straightforward: use this tool to retrieve a specific prompt by name with optional arguments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a list of prompts is needed instead. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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