list_prompt_partials

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent listing operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the fields returned (ids, slugs, names, collections, status) and by framing the call as a discovery step for later mutations. It does not cover pagination or result limits, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is a solid, informative description.

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, zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the workflow guidance. Every clause adds information: scope, optional filter, returned fields, and intended next steps.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers scope, filtering, returned fields, and downstream usage. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already documents collection_id with the same optional-filter semantics. The description restates that behavior at a high level but adds no format, example, or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List partials') and states the scope ('across collections, with optional collection filtering'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as list_partial_versions and get_prompt_partial, since it names itself as the enumeration entry point that yields a prompt_partial_id.

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 clearly explains when to use it: to obtain a prompt_partial_id before calling get_prompt_partial, update_prompt_partial, delete_prompt_partial, or publish_partial. It also says collection filtering is optional and can be omitted to list all partials. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative listing tools, which keeps it just below a 5.

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