get_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Fetch a specific prompt by name.' It does not mention side effects (likely none since fetch is read-only), behavior on missing prompts, error handling, precedence between version and label, or any permissions. This is a significant transparency gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 two short sentences with the essential action front-loaded: 'Fetch a specific prompt by name.' No redundant words or extra information, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with 4 parameters and zero schema coverage. It omits 'project', doesn't explain how version and label interact, and offers no usage context relative to siblings. The gaps in parameter semantics and behavior make this incomplete.

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?

The description adds some meaning by identifying 'name' as the key and indicating label/version are optional, but it omits the 'project' parameter entirely. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving the purpose of 'project' unclear.

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 clearly states 'Fetch a specific prompt by name' – a specific verb (fetch), resource (prompt), and identifier (name). It distinguishes from list_prompts and get_prompt_unresolved by emphasizing a specific prompt rather than listing all prompts or fetching unresolved ones.

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 phrase 'Fetch a specific prompt by name' implies use when retrieving one prompt, and 'Optionally specify version or label' indicates optional selection criteria. However, it never explicitly mentions when not to use this tool or names alternative tools like list_prompts, so guidance is only implied.

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