get_prompt_unresolved

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the core behavioral trait (unresolved placeholders, raw template intact) and explicitly contrasts with the resolving variant. It does not mention error behavior or permissions, but the primary nuance is well covered.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences deliver the core action, the use case, and the alternative. No filler words; 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 0% schema description coverage), the description covers the core behavior and usage intent but leaves parameter semantics undocumented. The presence of an output schema offsets the need to describe return values, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, yet the description provides no details about how `name`, `label`, `project`, and `version` are used. Only the general context of 'fetch a prompt' hints at `name`, leaving the optional parameters unexplained.

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 a specific action ('Fetch a prompt') with a key differentiator ('without resolving placeholders or linked dependencies'). This distinguishes it from sibling get_prompt, which resolves by default, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this for debugging prompt composition' and an explicit alternative: 'For production runtime fetches, use get_prompt which resolves by default.' This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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