portkey-admin-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('retrieve detailed information') and specifies the scope ('about a specific prompt partial'). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly stating it's for single-item retrieval).

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral details, or output format. For a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention safety or response structure to be more complete.

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%, with the single parameter 'prompt_partial_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format examples like 'slug' vs. 'ID', or where to obtain this ID). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('prompt partial'), specifying what information is returned ('detailed information including its content and version info'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_prompt_partials' (which lists multiple) and 'create_prompt_partial' (which creates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_prompt' or other 'get_' tools, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid prompt partial ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_prompt_partials' (for browsing) or 'list_partial_versions' (for version history). Usage is implied only by the action of retrieving a single item.

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