list_prompts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds valuable context by specifying the scope ('tracked') and the output fields, which tells the agent what to expect. However, it does not mention pagination or response limits despite the presence of a limit parameter.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant or unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key output attributes.

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?

The core operation is clear and the output fields are listed, but the 3 optional parameters are left unexplained. While the parameter names are relatively intuitive and the tool is simple, the 0% schema coverage and lack of any parameter semantics create notable gaps 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, active, search). The phrase 'active state' hints at the 'active' filter, but 'limit' and 'search' are entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'tracked prompts' and enumerates the returned fields (text, intent, tier, active state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_citations or list_recommendations, which target different entities.

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 the tool is used for listing prompts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_prompt_visibility or other list tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance remains at the level of implication.

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