list_prompts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing pagination behavior and the exact summary fields returned (id, name, slug, model, status), which is actionable context for downstream calls. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with zero waste: the first is front-loaded with the verb, resource, and filters; the second explains the return shape and its downstream purpose. Every clause earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information (what this is for) comes first.

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 read-only listing tool with 5 optional parameters (all schema-documented), an output schema present, and safety annotations provided, the description is complete. It covers the action, the filter space, the paginated return format, and the workflow role (selecting prompt_id for subsequent tools). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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% — every parameter (search, page_size, current_page, workspace_id, collection_id) already has a meaningful description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'optional collection, workspace, or search filters' restates what the schema already documents without adding syntax, defaults, or format details.

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 verb ('List'), a precise resource ('prompts'), and scope ('across the workspace'), then names the filters (collection, workspace, search). It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as the precursor to get_prompt, update_prompt, or render_prompt — the tool that supplies prompt_id for those operations. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 gives clear workflow context: use this to choose a prompt_id before get_prompt, update_prompt, or render_prompt. This tells the agent when in a multi-step flow this tool applies. It does not explicitly exclude close alternatives like list_prompt_versions or list_collections, so it stops short of a 5.

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