List active prompts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral constraint that only active prompts are listed, which is useful beyond the schema. It does not discuss pagination or auth, but the output schema and annotations cover the main safety/behavioral expectations.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the verb, resource, and non-mutation guarantee; the second provides a concrete example. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one required parameter fully described in the schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent nature, the description adds the remaining context needed (active-only scope and an example use case). Nothing critical is missing 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 coverage is 100% and brand_id is already described as 'Brand ID whose active prompts to list.' The description adds an example value ('acme') but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation ('List') and resource ('a brand's active buyer-intent prompts'), and explicitly adds 'without changing them', which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like set_prompts and generate_prompts. The example reinforces the intended scope.

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 phrase 'before an audit or refresh' gives a clear practical context for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the non-mutation framing and sibling list make the intended usage fairly obvious.

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