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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the result (a timestamp plus the beginning of each prompt), which the annotations do not convey. It omits any note on ordering or volume of versions returned.

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 tight sentences, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 read-only, single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, what it returns, and when to reach for it. Only minor operational details (pagination, ordering, result limits) are absent.

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 single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the cross-reference to dosai_list_projects. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 resource (previous versions of the bot's system prompt) and what each entry contains (save time, prompt beginning), which clearly separates it from the current-prompt and update-prompt siblings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Use it for 'what changed' or before restoring an old prompt in the cabinet" gives concrete triggering scenarios for the tool. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative (e.g. dosai_get_prompt for the live prompt), so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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