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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further context, such as pagination behavior, date-range constraints, or what the response contains. It simply restates the HTTP endpoint without enriching the behavioral picture.

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 extremely under-specified, consisting of only three words. While it is short, it omits any explanatory value, making it a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no structure to speak of.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and involves pagination and workspace context, the description is utterly insufficient. It provides no guidance on expected returns, pagination usage, or how identifiers are scoped, leaving the agent uninformed for correct invocation.

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 60%, partially explaining limit, query, cursor, and workspace_id. The description 'GET /prompts' adds no further meaning to these parameters, such as how to combine filters or interpret the cursor. It does not compensate for the undocumented brand_id parameter either.

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 'GET /prompts' provides a specific HTTP verb and resource path, clearly indicating a read-only operation on prompts. The tool name aidelly_list_prompts and the title 'List Prompts' reinforce this, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_posts or list_drafts.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention filtering by workspace or brand, nor does it reference any other tools for discovering workspace UUIDs, such as aidelly_list_workspaces.

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