get_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool runs in the Kuudo deployment, returns rendered JSON with a messages array, and expects arguments as a dict. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't explicitly state side-effect safety or error behavior.

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 three short sentences and each one adds information: execution context, retrieval purpose, output shape, and argument format. The opening 'Catalog entry.' is minor filler, but overall the description is efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format and argument usage. It also adds the important deployment context. It doesn't describe the messages array's inner structure or error cases, but for a simple fetch-by-name tool it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the arguments parameter as 'a dict mapping argument names to values,' which adds slight clarity but mostly mirrors the schema's anyOf object/null definition. It does not add substantial new meaning for either parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'Get a prompt by name with optional arguments.' It also clarifies the tool's product by saying it 'Returns the rendered prompt as JSON with a messages array,' which separates it from siblings like list_prompts.

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 gives useful context such as 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' and implies the use case of fetching a prompt by name. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_prompts or any other alternative, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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