get_prompts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden here. It discloses meaningful data-source semantics (it reads prompt text stored on each command record, not an agent transcript), which prevents a real misinterpretation. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, permission requirements, or result volume beyond what the schema's limit/offset already imply.

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 plus a clarifying clause; the capability and grouping are front-loaded, then the disambiguation. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes either scope or routing information.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description does the important work of explaining what a row represents (prompt text per command record, grouped by prompt) and how it differs from a transcript. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could say more about return shape or read-only nature for a zero-annotation read tool.

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%, so all six parameters (after, limit, detail, offset, executor, session_id) are already fully documented in the schema, including the acceptance formats for 'after'. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (agent prompts recorded alongside their commands) and a specific grouping behavior (grouped prompt by prompt), which is not inferable from the name alone. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_agent_session, so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It states the use case directly ('Use it to see which instruction led to which commands') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('for the transcript of a captured session use get_agent_session'). Both the when and the when-not are explicit.

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