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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result is JSON prompt metadata with name, description, and optional arguments, but since an output schema exists this is largely restating structured data; no mention of pagination, ordering, or whether disabled/remote prompts are included.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the return shape second; nothing extraneous and no repetition of the title.

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 parameters, a present output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is not stating that listing should precede a get_prompt call, or whether the list is exhaustive across all prompt sources despite openWorldHint.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The schema is empty and fully described.

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 ("List all available prompts") and the scope ("all"), which implicitly separates it from the get_prompt sibling. It is clear on its own, but never names get_prompt or otherwise explicitly differentiates from that sibling.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The discovery-then-fetch pattern with get_prompt is only implied by the word "all" and the listed metadata.

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