list_prompts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait: 'Auto-logs in if needed,' which reveals authentication handling. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, mention pagination, or describe any side effects. For a simple read operation this is minimal but acceptable.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the auto-login note is secondary. Everything stated earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description does not mention what the response should look like (e.g., an array of prompts) or any additional behavior such as limits or error responses. The ordering and auto-login are covered, but for a list operation, return structure information would make it more complete. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). There are no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter information, and nothing is omitted.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('stored prompts'), and an ordering criterion ('newest first'). It also includes the exact endpoint, which unambiguously identifies the operation. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_prompt and list_sessions by resource and action.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to retrieve prompts), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance like 'for sessions, use list_sessions instead.' The intended usage is inferable from the purpose, but not explicitly communicated.

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