Code Whisperer MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover authentication needs (api_key parameter), rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'full prompt pattern content' includes, the response format, or error handling. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete operational context.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (slug examples, api_key purpose). This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('full prompt pattern content'), specifying retrieval by slug. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_prompts (which lists rather than retrieves content) and get_template/get_skill (different resource types). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings in the description text itself.

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 doesn't mention when to choose get_prompt over list_prompts (for full content vs listing), or how it relates to get_template/get_skill for different resource types. No usage context or prerequisites are provided.

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