list_prompts

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

The description claims 'List all prompts' but the input schema includes default limit=50 and page=1, implying paginated results. This behavioral nuance is not disclosed. Beyond this, there is no mention of sorting, performance, or other traits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too sparse and could have included important context (like pagination) without sacrificing conciseness, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context about pagination, filtering by name/project, and the fact that 'all' may not literally mean all. For a tool with four optional parameters and a list operation, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only vaguely references 'project' but says nothing about 'name', 'page', or 'limit'. This provides almost no value beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool's verb ('List') and resource ('prompts') with scope ('in the project'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_prompt' or 'list_projects', missing the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion for a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention filtering, pagination, or when to prefer a more specific tool like 'get_prompt'. This is essentially no usage guidance.

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