The Builder's Prompt Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return content — full text, metadata, and deployment targets ('where it runs') — which matters given there is no output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and selector first. The trailing enumeration of runtime environments (chat app, pasted code, web tool, coding agent) is somewhat padded and reads like output detail rather than selection guidance.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what comes back and what the selector is. The remaining gap is discoverability — nothing tells the agent where slugs come from (search_prompts) or what a lookup miss returns.

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% and the slug parameter is already documented with pattern and length constraints. The description's 'by its slug' adds no syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch the full text and metadata of a single published prompt') with the key selector ('by its slug'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_prompts. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but the singular-by-slug scope is 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?

Usage is only implied: fetch when you already know the slug. There is no explicit 'use search_prompts first to obtain a slug' routing, no exclusion of list_stages, and no note about what happens if the slug is unknown.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: the set is fixed at six stages and counts cover published prompts only (scoping out unpublished content), but it says nothing about ordering or what fields come back.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the enumeration target, with the return content appended rather than buried. No filler.

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 no-argument read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it and to know roughly what comes back (six stages with counts). Only the shape of the returned items and their ordering remain unstated, which is a minor gap for a fixed enumeration.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed; there is nothing further 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?

Specific verb (List) plus a precise resource (the six delivery stages in the Builder's Prompt Library) and even the payload (published prompt counts per stage). The resource is so distinct from get_prompt and search_prompts that differentiation is implicit, though no sibling is named.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the siblings. Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is a discovery/reference call to enumerate stage names before filtering with search_prompts.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned fields and clarifying that grades and quality_score describe prompt writing rather than tested model performance.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds filtering, return fields, and an important caveat in a compact set of sentences. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.

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, the description appropriately explains the return shape (slug, title, summary, stage, category, grade) and includes a caveat about grade semantics. Combined with the detailed input schema and annotations, it gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the input schema already documents the query, stage, grade, and limit parameters including defaults, bounds, and enums. The description reinforces keyword search and optional filtering but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Builder's Prompt Library') and states that search is by keyword with optional stage and grade filters. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate its role from the sibling tools get_prompt and list_stages.

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 usage by saying the tool searches by keyword and optionally filters by delivery stage or prompt-writing grade. It does not state when to use this tool instead of get_prompt or list_stages, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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