get_prompt_partial

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the stored string plus version metadata, which is useful context. With an output schema present and safety covered by annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage context. No wasted wording.

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 an output schema explaining return values, full annotation coverage, and a single fully-described parameter, the definition is complete enough to call correctly. Minor room remains in explicitly contrasting sibling retrieval tools, but nothing essential is missing.

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 with 100% schema description coverage ('Prompt partial ID or slug to retrieve'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description implies the identifier maps to the {{> partial_name}} reference but adds no format or lookup nuances beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch a partial's content and current version details.' A reader understands it retrieves a stored prompt partial. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_prompt_version or list_partial_versions, but the resource is clear.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: 'Use this before embedding, updating, or checking what {{> partial_name}} resolves to.' This tells an agent when to reach for it. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, so it's not a 5.

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