get_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether id/name require exact matches, whether id takes precedence when both are supplied, what happens if not found, or the return format. The 'COMPLETO' hint is the only behavioral signal.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoping note. Efficient, though the capitalized 'COMPLETO' is slightly noisy styling rather than added structure.

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 simple 2-param lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the sibling distinction (get_prompt_summary) and selection behavior between id/name, which the 100% schema coverage partly compensates for on parameters but not on routing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters as 'use id OU name'. The description references both identifiers but adds no resolution/precedence semantics beyond what the schema states, so baseline 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?

States a clear verb+resource: retrieves the COMPLETE content of a prompt by id or name. This is unambiguous and distinguishes itself functionally from get_prompt_summary (which presumably returns partial), though it does not name that sibling explicitly. The 'COMPLETO' emphasis implies contrast but leaves it to inference.

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?

Says 'Use apenas quando precisar do conteúdo inteiro' (use only when you need the full content), which implies a when-to-use condition favoring get_prompt_summary otherwise. However it does not name the alternative tool or explain the tradeoff, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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