Apple Get Prompt

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

Annotations already communicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds the fallback rendering context. It doesn't disclose much beyond that, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either. The output schema covers return-shape expectations.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the operative meaning is front-loaded. All words contribute to defining its fallback purpose.

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, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It fails to explain how the prompt name is selected, how `argumens_json` affects rendering, or the relation to apple_list_prompts, so an agent is left to infer some call semantics.

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%, and the description gives no guidance on what `name` or `argumens_json` should contain. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, and 'rendering' hints that `argumens_json` may feed the prompt, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific operation ('prompt rendering') and target resource ('prompt'), and adds the fallback context of tool-only clients. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like apple_list_prompts, so it stops short of 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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool: as a fallback for clients that only support tools, implying a narrow, compatibility-oriented use case. It doesn't name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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