get_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds one useful trait beyond that – the result's template_format indicating a plain string versus a JSON messages array – but says nothing about scoping, permissions, or history size.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, usage timing, then a result-format caveat. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the final sentence about template_format is a return-value detail that could arguably be deferred given the output schema.

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 full annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description needs only purpose and routing, both of which it supplies. The main residual gap is distinguishing this tool from the version- and partial-specific siblings, which an agent facing 150+ tools would want.

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?

Only one parameter, prompt_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that it accepts an ID or slug. The description adds no syntax, format, or error-case detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a prompt') and enumerates what is returned: full definition, active version, and version history. This goes beyond the name alone, but it never names or differentiates against close siblings like get_prompt_version, list_prompt_versions, or get_prompt_partial, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'before updating, publishing, rendering, or copying a prompt when you need the stored template and metadata,' which gives concrete triggering contexts. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick when only a single version or a partial is needed.

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